Which Comes First?

[solarwave]

To Eilonnwy:

I read your link; quite interesting.

I just said what I said because you claimed everything you believed was from science.

Its fair enough to what evidence, so what to you counts as evidence? An example?

---

We believe the people we believe because of our experiences from the past. The veracity of their past claims allow us to model how true their current claims are likely to be. Ergo, we do not have "faith" in people we know; we are going off of past data to calculate the probability of their being right. We believe because of our knowledge not faith. This is much like your chair example in another thread.

Exactly so you believe because of reason not science?

[Rhizomorph13]

We believe the people we believe because of our experiences from the past. The veracity of their past claims allow us to model how true their current claims are likely to be. Ergo, we do not have "faith" in people we know; we are going off of past data to calculate the probability of their being right. We believe because of our knowledge not faith. This is much like your chair example in another thread.

Exactly so you believe because of reason not science?

Yes, I have reason to believe my friends because they have shown to be truthful in the past. Eillonnwy and I are not a team and atheism isn't some dogmatic aproach at life that "WE the ATHEISTS" hold near and dear. I never proffered up that I only believe things according to science. I was simply pointing our that your example was NOT a faith example. !faith is != to science.

Just so you can know me better, I believe I have a soul based on personal experience. This does not mean that I would ever accept anyone else's personal experience as evidence but I CAN understand believing in God based on personal experience.

Rhizo

PS !="not" I don't know how to express "not" any other way.

[solarwave]

Yes, I have reason to believe my friends because they have shown to be truthful in the past. Eillonnwy and I are not a team and atheism isn't some dogmatic aproach at life that "WE the ATHEISTS" hold near and dear. I never proffered up that I only believe things according to science. I was simply pointing our that your example was NOT a faith example. !faith is != to science.

Just so you can know me better, I believe I have a soul based on personal experience. This does not mean that I would ever accept anyone else's personal experience as evidence but I CAN understand believing in God based on personal experience.

Rhizo

PS !="not" I don't know how to express "not" any other way.

It seems I still make many assumtions when talking to atheists, something that will hopefully be cured by my being here.

I know faith isn't equal to science. I dunno, on my definition of faith it seems alot like it. I call faith trust in the way the evidence or reason to the best of our ability best points.

Thanks for that little personal bit, its helpfully. Just hoping I can remember its you who said it lol

[Rhizomorph13]

Solarwave,

I appreciate your approach so far, keep it up! By the way my expression !faith is != to science should be read this way (not)faith is (not)equal to science. I was just saying that while I might say that an example of yours is not a faith example that does not mean I am saying that it is necessarily an example of science in action. There are many things we accept based on basic beliefs such as the fact that reality is real and not a computer simulation and there is no way to test that belief.

Rhizo

[solarwave]

My approach? lol

I think here we must agree to disagree. Strangely what you have said has made me think faith is more like science than I first thought.

[Rhizomorph13]

Solarwave,

By your approach I was talking about your behavior on the forums. I would strongly suggest you read up on the scientific method before equating faith and science. Even a quick romp through the wiki definitions should provide the guidance that demonstrates how they differ from each other.

Rhizo

[Edwardo Piet]

Anyone at any point could sincerely believe.

I can't.

I could say I believe but I'd be lying if I did.

Me neither. Belief is never voluntary. I don't know whether we'd ever be able to survive as a species if it was. How would that even work?

If I really wanted to not believe something or to believe something, that won't have any effect on whether I do or not. Whether I do or not is not a matter of choice.

[...]
Genuine prayers are answered? Ha! That's called the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Something fr0d0 should be all too well familiar with by now. Oh well.

Good post btw.

What strange logic you work with Eilonnwy. You think asking for something impractical or unrealistic is acceptable or somehow ok? And you want evidence for my position on that!?!

Aren't things that are impractical and unrealistic, the things that if anything, rationally require the most evidence, if you are to rationally believe in them?

@ E [Elionnwy]:
You deny the non scientific. I don't. Logic would suggest that science doesn't answer every question in human understanding. I've already shown why scientific tests would not show anything. You haven't countered that just repeated your statement. Maybe you don't understand how God answers.

The scientific actually has support. If God has no scientific support, that doesn't automatically has some other form of support. Unlike your God, science actually has support. I am yet to see you give God any support, you have merely went on about how the ridiculous of the idea of God makes it ridiculous to require scientific support for him...but whether that is true or not, whether he can have scientific support or not, why should you believe in him without any support? Will you ever substantiate your God claim(s)?

Maybe God exists but we don't understand how he answers. But also, maybe it's more rational to not assume there's a God in the first place, and the reason why there's no answer, is because he doesn't exist.

You can't have scientific data. You can test.

You have my undivided attention. Outline the method of testing.

Good point Luke.

EvF

[Ryft]

I'm a little confused. I read a few posts on prayer-answering and it seems you must first truly believe in God before they can be answered.

And what did you take "truly believe in God" to mean? You see, that conveys a lot more than mere intellectual assent to his existence.

So which should come first: (1) To believe in X, then be able to see X; (2) To see X, then believe in X? I say the latter makes more sense.

Depends on what X (or "something") is standing in for. God? In other words, could your which-comes-first question be rephrased as contrasting (1) "In order to experience God, I must first believe in God" against (2) "In order to believe in God, I must first experience God"?

If so, then the latter (2).

[solarwave]

Rhizo:

I might do that, but I really should know since science is one of my main interests and was going to do physics at Uni at one point.

Isn't it along the lines of test, get data, look from relationships, repeat a number of times then write laws/theories...........

[Rhizomorph13]

Solarwave,

From the first website I found with Google: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fa...thod.shtml

The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.

The steps of the scientific method are to:
1. Ask a Question
2. Do Background Research
3. Construct a Hypothesis
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6. Communicate Your Results

It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.

This is much more involved than faith.

Rhizo