Arguments for (or against) the existence of God

[billvon 2,380]

>scientific method => rejection of faith

So a father cannot have faith in his son and be a good scientist.

>Have a strong desire for one's son to be successful at some pursuit or activity is not
>equivalent to having faith that a supreme being exists.

Correct. But I said have FAITH in him, not just hope he is successful. Having faith is a part of the unconditional love that most parents feel for their children, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

[jcd11235 0]

billvon

>scientific method => rejection of faith

So a father cannot have faith in his son and be a good scientist.

>Have a strong desire for one's son to be successful at some pursuit or activity is not
>equivalent to having faith that a supreme being exists.

Correct. But I said have FAITH in him, not just hope he is successful. Having faith is a part of the unconditional love that most parents feel for their children, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Your insistence on the use of faith in that context is nonsensical. It's meaning is different from how faith has been used in the rest of the discussion.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>scientific method => rejection of faith

So a father cannot have faith in his son and be a good scientist.

>Have a strong desire for one's son to be successful at some pursuit or activity is not
>equivalent to having faith that a supreme being exists.

Correct. But I said have FAITH in him, not just hope he is successful. Having faith is a part of the unconditional love that most parents feel for their children, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

The thread is about the existence - obviously he (the scientist) wouldn't need faith to know his son existed.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,380]

>It's meaning is different from how faith has been used in the rest of the discussion.

No; the word means what it means.

I have found that once someone I am talking with starts to quibble over the definitions of words in an attempt to win an argument it's time to abandon it. Have a good day.

[muff528 3]

Here's a suggestion to save a little bandwith. We could have numbers assigned to various commonly repeated positions on a topic like this. Short modifiers and emojis could be used in addition to the numbers, but keep it short. Other numbers could be used for each reply or rebuttal. A sticky could be posted that provides the key to each number's assigned meaning. So an exchange might go something like this --

User 1: "17"

User 2: "28 "

User 1: "3"

User 8: "41 all y'all !!!"

Mod: "You're banned !!" ...err, I mean "86 !!"

Of course, we'd have to refer to the key chart in the beginning, but it shouldn't be long before the numbers are memorized well enough.



(Some folks just can't tell a joke. )

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>I have found that once someone I am talking with starts to quibble over the definitions of words in an attempt to win an argument it's time to abandon it. Have a good day.

I left two conversations at what I thought was that point. In each, you magically appeared to take up the baton. I don't particularly want it back.

Good discussions regardless. We have the best debators, here. The best. Lots of winning going on. I wouldn't say this forum is "Exceptional" - that comes across snotty, but I will just let the forum speak for itself so others can just view, and bask, in the exceptionalism.

Because together, we are stronger. We are the best at breaking glass. Floors, walls, ceilings, doesn't matter. We are the best.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

billvon

No; the word means what it means.

You'll find, if you look in a dictionary, that faith indeed has multiple definitions. Further, if you read those definitions, you'll undoubtedly recognize that you switched from one to another in a futile effort to support your untenable position.

billvon

I have found that once someone I am talking with starts to quibble over the definitions of words in an attempt to win an argument it's time to abandon it. Have a good day.

I accept you concession, however ungraceful it might be.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[turtlespeed 212]

rehmwa

***>I have found that once someone I am talking with starts to quibble over the definitions of words in an attempt to win an argument it's time to abandon it. Have a good day.

I left two conversations at what I thought was that point. In each, you magically appeared to take up the baton. I don't particularly want it back.

Good discussions regardless. We have the best debators, here. The best. Lots of winning going on. I wouldn't say this forum is "Exceptional" - that comes across snotty, but I will just let the forum speak for itself so others can just view, and bask, in the exceptionalism.

Because together, we are stronger. We are the best at breaking glass. Floors, walls, ceilings, doesn't matter. We are the best.

All the credit goes to the moderators. Their exceptionalism is epic. Just ask them.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 620]

But did you?

[muff528 3]

normiss

But did you?

23

[winsor 185]

billvon

>It's meaning is different from how faith has been used in the rest of the discussion.

No; the word means what it means.

I have found that once someone I am talking with starts to quibble over the definitions of words in an attempt to win an argument it's time to abandon it. Have a good day.

Nice try.

Since you have some passing familiarity with logic, I am sure that you know that there are quite a variety of types of definition - lexical, medical, technical, legal, precising, political, stipulative, and so forth.

One example is that you can use a single gate type, say NAND, to achieve any logical combination by defining high or low true in accordance with DeMorgan's theorem. Thus, NAND-NAND logic uses the same output, interpreted as exactly the opposite, to achieve its ends.

Thus, you can have faith in someone in the sense that you give them credit for being able to do something, which differs from faith in the sense of a system of belief.

Agreeing to the definition in use helps to avoid talking past each other. If talking past each other is the goal, all bets are off.


BSBD,

Winsor

[gowlerk 1,902]

Definition of futility...

Arguing for or against the existence of God.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[livendive 8]

jcd11235

***>scientific method => rejection of faith

So a father cannot have faith in his son and be a good scientist.

>Have a strong desire for one's son to be successful at some pursuit or activity is not
>equivalent to having faith that a supreme being exists.

Correct. But I said have FAITH in him, not just hope he is successful. Having faith is a part of the unconditional love that most parents feel for their children, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Your insistence on the use of faith in that context is nonsensical. It's meaning is different from how faith has been used in the rest of the discussion.

So let's try another context. Every time I go out to dinner, I accept on faith that my server has not spit in my meal. I've probably been wrong on occasion, but to doubt it routinely would seriously undermine my opinion of restaurants as a reasonable dining option. Does this mean that I and all the other scientists I've worked with over the last couple of decades should quit our jobs and find other employment more suitable to our limited skillsets?

Where I think the real discrepancy in definitions lies in this argument is your definition of scientist. I would not call someone who does impeccable research a bad scientist on the basis of how they spend their Sunday mornings. I would judge them on the quality of their actual work. I've worked with scientists of many specialties on a daily basis for about 22 years. Biologists, chemists, epidemiologists, mathematicians, geologists, chemical and nuclear physicists, environmental scientists, even laser nerds. Many of these scientists (admittedly a smaller fraction than seems present in the general population) have also been religious. Yet they seem no better or worse at quantifying or remediating pollutant plumes, predicting and mitigating biological effects of radiation or toxins, testing hypothesis on particle dynamics, or shooting ridiculously overpowered light beams through things.

Sure, an archeologist or evolutionary biologist might find some conflicts between their faith and their profession, but for most branches, religion is simply not a factor in the application of the scientific method to a particular problem or question. If someone who gets paid to do the latter does it well, I consider them a good scientist. Judging them based how they spend Easter seems as relevant as judging a chef based on what he prepares for himself at home, or a novelist based on the quality of his emails.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[jcd11235 0]

livendive

So let's try another context. Every time I go out to dinner, I accept on faith that my server has not spit in my meal. I've probably been wrong on occasion, but to doubt it routinely would seriously undermine my opinion of restaurants as a reasonable dining option.

If you had evidence suggesting that your servers did spit in your food a meaningful proportion of the time, then your expectations would change. In other words, since you have no reason to believe your servers spit in your food, spitting in your food would be contrary to their job description (and probably a violation of health codes), and you (presumably) have not given your servers any reason to treat you badly, then the assumption that the null hypothesis holds, i.e., that they are performing their job as described and expected, is reasonable, since that's the most probable outcome.

As long as you're open to (at least testing) an alternative hypothesis should new information inconsistent with the null hypothesis present itself, you're not taking anything on faith. You're accepting that something is probably true because it's more likely than the alternative given the available evidence.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Coreeece 2]

winsor

Let's start with the fact that religion is, by definition, a transmissible form of mental illness

...and inadvertently repeating oneself ad nauseam is a sign of dementia, but I suppose that I could give one the benefit of a doubt and leave that up to a doctor's diagnosis.

I think mental illness could certainly lead one to become more religious - or even worse - lead to more virulent manifestations of faith, but I would expect physical evidence as to the cause of mental illness whether by way of genetics, brain damage, or chemical imbalance.

In most cases, religious people fit a clean bill of health - therefore, the evidence suggests that their propensity toward faith is either directly or indirectly the result of human adaptation.

But you guys are the evidential types, so that's your problem. I'm merely a christian - therefore, God did it.

winsor

The "underground roots" of Christianity were a movement specific to a particular tribe, and not at all for universal consumption. Once co-opted by Europeans (who engaged in the irony of using the means by which they executed the person they supposedly 'followed' as the symbol of their newly crafted 'faith'), they institutionalized the religion in a form that was/is unrecognizable by comparison to the original movement.

I agree, but I would also add that the protestant reformation was a step back in the right direction.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Coreeece 2]

jcd11235

religion requires embracing faith, while science requires rejecting faith. The intersection is empty. Success at one implies inevitable failure at the other.

One can objectively study, understand and explain that which is observable, while having faith in that which is not.

Now you may not like that because they don't use science as a platform to go off on tirades of anti-religious conjecture and promote militant atheism, but that has nothing to do with being a good scientist.

Science is not the end all - say all, nor does it address every area of the human experience.

Also - reading and understanding the whole of scripture is not a prerequisite for being a "good christian." Some of the most revered believers didn't have the gospel as we now know it, while others were unfamiliar with that which had already been written - they merely just believed.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[normiss 620]

"Science is not the end all - say all, nor does it address every area of the human experience. "

It does serve a much larger meaning to our experience than does religion, in almost every way.

[Coreeece 2]

Both have their place - ymmv

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[jcd11235 0]

Coreeece

One can objectively study, understand and explain that which is observable, while having faith in that which is not.

One cannot simultaneously embrace faith, as required by religion, and reject faith, as required by the scientific method, no matter how you try to rationalize the cognitive dissonance.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Coreeece 2]

jcd11235

***One can objectively study, understand and explain that which is observable, while having faith in that which is not.

One cannot simultaneously embrace faith, as required by religion, and reject faith, as required by the scientific method

There is no reason to reject faith in the areas of life where it's relevant. Both science and faith have their place and can coexist harmoniously.

I can mentally prepare myself and pray to God for objectivity in my observations, safety during my experiments, accuracy in my measurements and effective communication of the results, free of conjecture and advancement of a personal or social agenda.

Amen.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[jcd11235 0]

Coreeece

Both science and faith have their place and can coexist harmoniously.

Provided it's not within the same person.

ETA: I wonder what the state of cosmology would be if Prof. Hawking subscribed to such supernatural nonsense.

http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Coreeece 2]

jcd11235

***Both science and faith have their place and can coexist harmoniously.

Provided it's not within the same person.

Your definition of what is required of religion and that which qualifies as a "good religious person" is subjective - so I suppose there is no point in arguing with you. Suffice it to say however, that it's simply not relevant, nor does it apply to me.

jcd11235

ETA: I wonder what the state of cosmology would be if Prof. Hawking subscribed to such supernatural nonsense.
http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

Again, you simply make objective observations and effectively communicate the results without conjecture - free of a personal/social agenda and let the results speak for themselves - there is no reason to bring God into the mix. Besides, how would one be able to recognize God anyway if you don't know what you're looking for?

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[jcd11235 0]

Coreeece

nor does it apply to me.

You could say that about reality in general.

******ETA: I wonder what the state of cosmology would be if Prof. Hawking subscribed to such supernatural nonsense.
http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

Again, you simply make objective observations and effectively communicate the results without conjecture - free of a personal/social agenda and let the results speak for themselves - there is no reason to bring God into the mix. Besides, how would one be able to recognize God anyway if you don't know what you're looking for?

So, you're saying one can maintain non-wavering faith in a creator while simultaneously proving objectively that no creator was necessary for the universe to begin? Um, good luck with that.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Coreeece 2]

jcd11235

So, you're saying one can maintain non-wavering faith in a creator while simultaneously proving objectively that no creator was necessary for the universe to begin?

You can demonstrate how a creator wasn't necessary, but that proves nothing about his existence or lack thereof. How can science possibly recognize or speak with any specificity whatsoever about God if you don't know what you're looking for, or where to look - especially if one assumes that such an entity is beyond space, time and the laws that govern it?

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[jcd11235 0]

Coreeece

You can demonstrate how a creator wasn't necessary, but that proves nothing about his existence or lack thereof.

Once again, you conveniently miss the point. No one is claiming he proved a negative, or that proving a negative is even possible.

Had Hawking had strong faith in a supreme being, he would have avoided such lines of inquiry altogether.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!