Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

A hypothetical dilemma?

13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    You wanting to use the bathroom is based on the need to relieve yourself of unwanted bodily fluids and/or solids. This is brought on by the assimilation of liquids and solids into the body through the process of ingestion and digestion. Gravity pulls on these substances through the body and triggers nerve sensors in the bowels and bladder which sends a message to your brain which tells you that you need to go to the bathroom, only then can you want to go to the bathroom. If you get to the bathroom and find that you do not want to relieve yourself then I can only put that down to a short circuitry in your nerve endings in your bowels which you might need to ask your doctor about. However be that as it may, it has nothing to do with faith as I have described it and why you brought it up is a mystery to me.

    Because that is what you are claiming "faith" is, an action based on a belief. I believe I have to go to the bathroom, I get up and go to the bathroom. Is that an act of faith? No, of course not. It is though an act based on a belief I hold.

    I agree totally that me going to the bathroom has nothing to do with faith but then neither does the stuff you are talking about.

    Faith is trust that something or someone will be or act in such a way that produces a favourable or desired outcome for you without strong evidence to support that idea. No one ever says they have "faith" that their little girl is going to be found raped and murdered in a ditch some where.

    You have faith your lost puppy will be found ok, despite you not knowing where he is or what has happened to him. What that means is that you trust the universe will not cause your lost puppy to be harmed and that he will be returned safely

    You have faith your girlfriend is not going to cheat on you in Ibiza, despite you not going with her and her being surrounded by horny men for a week. What that means is that you trust your girl friend will not do something that would hurt you

    You have faith that the Bible stories are correct despite them being written 2000 years ago by people who you cannot meet making claims you cannot verify. What that means is that you trust that the Bible was inspired by God and that it is accurate.

    Faith is ultimately an act of trust, you trust someone or something that they will not let you down. Trusting someone to do something bad is some what meaningless (why would anyone do that?) and thus so is faith that doesn't produce a positive outcome.

    The point is that trust is exactly what you do not do with science. In science you don't trust anyone. Nothing is to be taken on faith.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    sink wrote: »
    So what's the word used for believing in something without evidence?

    Also faith. Any action based on any belief whether there is evidence for that belief or not is faith. Every act you do is faith based when yo think about it. You assume that the universe is not going to disintegrate within the next five seconds and you act accordingly, that is faith too. You don't know that it won't disintegrate, you have no evidence that it will stay as is and yet you act as those it will.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Also faith. Any action based on any belief whether there is evidence for that belief or not is faith. Every act you do is faith based when yo think about it. You assume that the universe is not going to disintegrate within the next five seconds and you act accordingly, that is faith too. You don't know that it won't disintegrate, you have no evidence that it will stay as is and yet you act as those it will.

    Is that not the same as belief so belief = faith, faith = belief? I have faith that if I put two apples and two oranges in a bowl there will be four pieces of fruit in that bowl, I have faith my name is Adam, I have faith i'm sitting down right now, I have faith I can speak English. Is there not one word in the English language that distinguishes belief without evidence from all other belief and is that word not faith? I believe it is and I base my belief on wiktionary.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Faith is believing something without evidence. If you define faith in a very specific way, ie I personally don't have the evidence right now, then I am taking it on faith that gravity makes us accelerate at 9.8m/s2

    But that is of course the wrong way to define faith. I may not have looked at the evidence for the theory of gravity but it most certainly exists and if I wanted to I could go and look it up and once I look it up, if the equations are not convincing enough I can do the experiments for myself.

    So a better way to define faith would be believing despite no evidence existing

    I know but once given the evidence from the research then you either proceed on the basis of that evidence or not. If you do then you are acting in faith on the basis of the evidence. At some point you must act in faith.

    That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the term. If you have evidence indicating that something might be true and you proceed with your experiments based on this evidence, there is no requirement to have faith in the evidence. The evidence can be demonstrated and proven. The only way faith comes into it is you have to have faith in your own ability to interpret the evidence properly. The evidence will always be the same, the only thing that might ever change is your perception of it


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Well before you even get that knowledge, you are assuming that the process - in this case the scientific method - by which you obtain that knowledge is sound (and it more than likely is) but to act as though the process of attaining the knowledge is sound is also acting in faith, never mind what you do after you receive said knowledge. The tired and tested scientific method of drawing conclusions based on available evidence, experimentation, testing and so on is so good that it is not even questioned anymore (and I'm not for one minute suggestion that it should be) but is is still assumed and therefore acted upon as though it were true. That is faith by definition.

    I'm not sure what you mean. If I drop a stone a billion times it will always fall and hit the floor. If you do it, the same will happen. If anyone else does it, the same will happen. No one in the history of dropping stones on earth has ever had a stone ever do anything other than hit the ground...and so I can safely say that tomorrow, if I drop a stone, it will hit the ground. It's not faith driving that assumption, it's the fact that a stone being dropped millions of times, in millions of places by millions of people has always behaved the same way regardless of tester or location. Anyone can pick up a stone & do likewise, at any time.

    I'm not seeing a correlation between that & having faith in something that only some people can see/hear/experience. Surely there is no standard by which you can set religious faith, no worldwide test that can say everyone in the world equivocally will have the same experience? That's the basis for scientific claims, that anyone doing the same experiment will replicate the exact same results, each & every time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Also faith. Any action based on any belief whether there is evidence for that belief or not is faith. Every act you do is faith based when yo think about it. You assume that the universe is not going to disintegrate within the next five seconds and you act accordingly, that is faith too. You don't know that it won't disintegrate, you have no evidence that it will stay as is and yet you act as those it will.

    I can sort of see your point in a "we cannot truly know anything" kind of way. When it comes down to it, the only thing I can be absolutely sure exists is my own consciousness. It is actually impossible to prove that we are capable of rational though because we must first assume that our reasoning is sound

    But that is a very high level philosophical argument and doesn't really apply to the real world. I know my computer is here because I can touch it. Knowing it is there does not require faith in the conventional sense. It can be demonstrated to the best of human ability that it is there. The same is not true of God, so faith is required to believe.

    Basically, not all faith is equal. There is the faith that comes from lack of confidence in human ability to interpret evidence and there is faith that comes from no evidence to be interpreted one way or the other. The former is not normally called faith, it's called knowing


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The point is that trust is exactly what you do not do with science. In science you don't trust anyone. Nothing is to be taken on faith.

    From "Ducking Friendly Fire: Davison on the Grounding Objection" by William Lane Craig:

    "...Compare the case of the Special Theory of Relativity. Crucial to that theory is the so-called Light Postulate, which asserts that light travels in vacuo at a constant speed c. Not only is there no evidence for this postulate, but as numerous commentators have explained, the Light Postulate is inherently unprovable because we can only measure the round-trip speed of light. Nonetheless, Einstein claimed, grant me this assumption along with the theory’s other postulate, the Relativity Postulate (which is also impossible to prove!), and I shall provide you with the best explanation of the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Despite the unprovability of its postulates, the theory as a whole is considered by the majority of physicists to be the best explanation (within its restricted domain of flat spacetime) in view of its theoretical virtues like economy and empirical success."

    That tells me that there are some things in science that are assumed to be true without any proof whatsoever.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    From "Ducking Friendly Fire: Davison on the Grounding Objection" by William Lane Craig:

    "...Compare the case of the Special Theory of Relativity. Crucial to that theory is the so-called Light Postulate, which asserts that light travels in vacuo at a constant speed c. Not only is there no evidence for this postulate, but as numerous commentators have explained, the Light Postulate is inherently unprovable because we can only measure the round-trip speed of light. Nonetheless, Einstein claimed, grant me this assumption along with the theory’s other postulate, the Relativity Postulate (which is also impossible to prove!), and I shall provide you with the best explanation of the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Despite the unprovability of its postulates, the theory as a whole is considered by the majority of physicists to be the best explanation (within its restricted domain of flat spacetime) in view of its theoretical virtues like economy and empirical success."

    That tells me that there are some things in science that are assumed to be true without any proof whatsoever.

    The proof is in the pudding so to speak. The special theory of relativity has shown to be extremely accurate and the theory only works if light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum so the fact that it is accurate is considered evidence that light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum. This does not mean that the theory could not be proved wrong tomorrow but it is based upon the best currently available evidence.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    From "Ducking Friendly Fire: Davison on the Grounding Objection" by William Lane Craig:

    "...Compare the case of the Special Theory of Relativity. Crucial to that theory is the so-called Light Postulate, which asserts that light travels in vacuo at a constant speed c. Not only is there no evidence for this postulate, but as numerous commentators have explained, the Light Postulate is inherently unprovable because we can only measure the round-trip speed of light. Nonetheless, Einstein claimed, grant me this assumption along with the theory’s other postulate, the Relativity Postulate (which is also impossible to prove!), and I shall provide you with the best explanation of the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Despite the unprovability of its postulates, the theory as a whole is considered by the majority of physicists to be the best explanation (within its restricted domain of flat spacetime) in view of its theoretical virtues like economy and empirical success."

    That tells me that there are some things in science that are assumed to be true without any proof whatsoever.

    Those postulates are accepted because they fit the evidence of what is being presented. Assuming those two things makes all the equations work so it can be reasonably assumed that they are correct without inherently proving them

    A more common example would be: we do not currently completely understand the atom, it contains many mysteries and there are many unproveable theories. But that does not mean we can't stick a load of them together and build a house from them

    "Faith" based on evidence is not faith, it is "reasonably assuming". It cannot be reasonably assumed that the Judeo Christian god exists any more than we can reasonably assume that pixies exist. We cannot rule out the possibility but we cannot assume it either


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    sink wrote: »
    Is that not the same as belief so belief = faith, faith = belief? I have faith that if I put two apples and two oranges in a bowl there will be four pieces of fruit in that bowl, I have faith my name is Adam, I have faith i'm sitting down right now, I have faith I can speak English. Is there not one word in the English language that distinguishes belief without evidence from all other belief and is that word not faith? I believe it is and I base my belief on wiktionary.

    Faith is not the same as belief. For instance, I can believe that planes fly without ever having to get on one. But to have faith that planes fly is to actually get on one. By boarding the plane I am acting on my previously held belief that planes fly. That is the difference between belief and faith. Belief involves the mind whereas faith involves both the mind and the will.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Faith is not the same as belief. For instance, I can believe that planes fly without ever having to get on one. But to have faith that planes fly is to actually get on one. By boarding the plane I am acting on my previously held belief that planes fly. That is the difference between belief and faith. Belief involves the mind whereas faith involves both the mind and the will.

    Your definitions of belief and faith are unlike any I've ever heard before. Seems to me you're giving selective definitions to try to make it look like faith in God is on the same level as faith in planes when it's clearly not. I've seen thousands of planes in my life, it has been demonstrated to me that they can fly. I have never seen god or any conclusive evidence for god. The two beliefs are not even similar


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    sink wrote: »
    The proof is in the pudding so to speak. The special theory of relativity has shown to be extremely accurate and the theory only works if light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum so the fact that it is accurate is considered evidence that light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum. This does not mean that the theory could not be proved wrong tomorrow but it is based upon the best currently available evidence.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Those postulates are accepted because they fit the evidence of what is being presented. Assuming those two things makes all the equations work so it can be reasonably assumed that they are correct without inherently proving them

    A more common example would be: we do not currently completely understand the atom, it contains many mysteries and there are many unproveable theories. But that does not mean we can't stick a load of them together and build a house from them

    "Faith" based on evidence is not faith, it is "reasonably assuming". It cannot be reasonably assumed that the Judeo Christian god exists any more than we can reasonably assume that pixies exist. We cannot rule out the possibility but we cannot assume it either

    The point was that it is not proven, hence the assumption that it is true is acted on as though it were true without proof. I wasn't trying to point out that what was being assumed wasn't true. It most likely is, but some things have to be assumed as true without proof in order to get there right?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Soul Winner, Does that mean you have no faith that a plane would fly unless you were on it at the time?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Faith is not the same as belief. For instance, I can believe that planes fly without ever having to get on one. But to have faith that planes will fly is to actually get on one. By boarding the plane I am acting on my previously held belief that planes fly. That is the difference between belief and faith. Belief involves the mind whereas faith involves both the mind and the will.

    That is a pretty weird definition of faith. I believe Australia exists but if I choose to go there I have 'faith' that it exists.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Soul Winner, Does that mean you have no faith that a plane would fly unless you were on it at the time?

    Yes, exactly. But you can still believe it will fly without ever having to get on it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    The point was that it is not proven, hence the assumption that it is true is acted on as though it were true without proof. I wasn't trying to point out that what was being assumed wasn't true. It most likely is, but some things have to be assumed as true without proof in order to get there right?

    The difference is that Einstein didn't say "accept this assumption because I want it to be true", he said "accept this assumption because every shred of evidence is indicating that it is true". That is the difference between reasonably assuming and faith


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Soul winner, what is your point exactly? Are you trying to compare faith in god to faith in Australia or do you acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between the two?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Yes, exactly. But you can still believe it will fly without ever having to get on it.

    I believe aeroplanes fly because I've seen them fly, I've flown in them before & I know an avionics engineer & a pilot. I know there is a specific amount of thrust required to get an object of a particular weight off the ground because experiments have proven this to be the case.

    I only have faith that I will get to my destination because I also know planes have crashed, it's the only unknown quantity in this scenario. At no point do I require faith that planes fly, either on the ground or while on board.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    I only have faith that I will get to my destination because I also know planes have crashed, it's the only unknown quantity in this scenario.
    I wouldn't even call that faith, I'd call it hope


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    sink wrote: »
    That is a pretty weird definition of faith. I believe Australia exists but if I choose to go there I have 'faith' that it exists.

    Say you lived in present day New Zealand and had been to Australia several times and you had a small sailing boat and you set out for Australia because you believe it existed based on previous experiences of the place having been there, then that is to act on a belief which is faith. But let us say that you lived in the 15th century, and nobody ever heard of Australia and you say that you believe it exists based on a revelation you got in a dream but had no tangible evidence of it and you set sail for Australia then? You are still acting in faith based upon a belief. Faith by definition is simply acting on a belief.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Faith by definition is simply acting on a belief.
    No, it's not. This is the first time I have ever heard faith defined that way

    None of the definitions given here:
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
    Define faith as acting on a belief, they simply define it as "belief without evidence"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Faith by definition is simply acting on a belief.

    No, I think it just shows that sailing to Australia before satellite images of the globe, digital mapping & radar involved faith in the basic maps you did have. Nowadays, there is no doubt that there is an Australia, no argument as to where it is & what it looks like because we have the ability to see pictures of it from space.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I wouldn't even call that faith, I'd call it hope

    Well, I hope it gets there too but my faith would be based on the assumption that we would actually get there in one piece, not because planes may or may not fly but because it's statistically unlikely the plane would crash.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Say you lived in present day New Zealand and had been to Australia several times and you had a small sailing boat and you set out for Australia because you believe it existed based on previous experiences of the place having been there, then that is to act on a belief which is faith. But let us say that you lived in the 15th century, and nobody ever heard of Australia and you say that you believe it exists based on a revelation you got in a dream but had no tangible evidence of it and you set sail for Australia then? You are still acting in faith based upon a belief. Faith by definition is simply acting on a belief.

    Hmmm, I dont buy it. I have never come across such a convoluted definition of faith before and I don't consider it the common definition as understood by the rest of the worlds English speaking population. Enough of arguing semantics. What you are really trying to is to elevate spiritual revelation so it appears equal to concrete physical evidence, which is ultimately futile no matter how you choose to define words.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    I believe aeroplanes fly because I've seen them fly, I've flown in them before & I know an avionics engineer & a pilot.

    OK then, can explain your belief that radiation exists. Have you ever seen radiation? Do you doubt that it exists because you have never seen it? No, but you believe it does exist because you will tell me that you have seen the bad effects that radiation has on the cell structure of the body and point me to examples like the horrible tragedy of Chernobyl, and yet when you see the good effects that God has in people lives you don't accept that He exists because you can't see Him. :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    OK then, can explain your belief that radiation exists. Have you ever seen radiation? Do you doubt that it exists because you have never seen it? No, but you believe it does exist because you will tell me that you have seen the bad effects that radiation has on the cell structure of the body and point me to examples like the horrible tragedy of Chernobyl, and yet when you see the good effects that God has in people lives you don't accept that He exists because you can't see Him. :confused:

    You don't have to literally see something to know it exists. Radiation is not visible to the naked eye but it can be proven to exist in other ways. You say yourself we can see its effects. I can't see air but I'm pretty sure it exists because I'd be dead if it didn't.

    I don't accept god because I have yet to see something that couldn't have happened just as easily had he not intervened and I have yet to see any evidence that disasters and general bad things have a tendency to be avoided. They seem to happen as frequently, if not far more frequently than good things


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    OK then, can explain your belief that radiation exists. Have you ever seen radiation? Do you doubt that it exists because you have never seen it? No, but you believe it does exist because you will tell me that you have seen the bad effects that radiation has on the cell structure of the body and point me to examples like the horrible tragedy of Chernobyl, and yet when you see the good effects that God has in people lives you don't accept that He exists because you can't see Him. :confused:

    FYI light is radiation, everything you see is just radiation impacting your retina. I know microwaves exist because they can heat up my dinner, I know x-ray's exist because i've seen the resulting images of x-rays passing trough my body and impacting a photographic filament.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    OK then, can explain your belief that radiation exists. Have you ever seen radiation? Do you doubt that it exists because you have never seen it? No, but you believe it does exist because you will tell me that you have seen the bad effects that radiation has on the cell structure of the body and point me to examples like the horrible tragedy of Chernobyl, and yet when you see the good effects that God has in people lives you don't accept that He exists because you can't see Him. :confused:

    You prove to me a tangeable correlation between God & good deeds in the same way as I can re radiation with a map around Chernobyl & I'll believe you. I don't just choose to believe exposure to radiation causes genetic mutation or cancer. As we can produce radioactive material, there is actually tangeable substance to radiation.

    You see the good effects God has in peoples lives, I just see peoples lives. You seem to equate something to Gods doing, I don't see it. I've never seen, heard or witnessed God in any way shape or form. I've seen pictures of Chernobyl, I can read numerous reports on what radiation poisoning can do to the body & look at the pictures of those affected & know one influenced the other. That the likelihood of genetic mutation around Chernobyl being 7 times the national average is based on more than just blind faith.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No, it's not. This is the first time I have ever heard faith defined that way

    None of the definitions given here:
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
    Define faith as acting on a belief, they simply define it as "belief without evidence"


    Faith is always associated with trust, reliance etc. I can believe that Jesus exists but it is a different thing for me to trust Him with my life. That trusting is action, and is more than simple belief that He exists.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Faith is always associated with trust, reliance etc. I can believe that Jesus existed but it is a different thing for me to trust Him with my life. That trusting is action, and is more than simple belief that He exists.
    You're just arguing semantics. Belief can be used in the same context and faith can be used in other contexts

    You can trust a pilot when he tells you he's competent without ever getting on a plane


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    ...there is actually tangeable substance to radiation.

    OK then what about gravity? Is there actual tangible substance to gravity? Where is gravity?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    OK then what about gravity? Is there actual tangible substance to gravity? Where is gravity?

    Gravity is a force not matter.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You're just arguing semantics. Belief can be used in the same context and faith can be used in other contexts

    You can trust a pilot when he tells you he's competent without ever getting on a plane

    Nope, you are trusting the pilot when you actually get onto his plane, before that you are just believing that he is a competent pilot. Would you trust him with your wife alone for instance? Meaning would you leave him alone in your house for a night with her alone? If you would then that is trusting his integrity rather than just believing he could be trusted. Trust is an act of the will not just a belief held by the mind alone.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    OK then what about gravity? Is there actual tangible substance to gravity? Where is gravity?

    Gravity is a force and therefore not a physical object but that does not mean it doesn't exist. To observe gravity one should jump off some buildings. Why are you asking these questions that you know the answers to? You will never succeed in convincing anyone that belief in god is the same as belief in gravity because nothing has ever happened that can be definitively pointed to as evidence of god's intervention. All you have is a list of perfectly natural good stuff that can be countered with a list of bad stuff 1000 times longer


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Faith is always associated with trust, reliance etc. I can believe that Jesus exists but it is a different thing for me to trust Him with my life. That trusting is action, and is more than simple belief that He exists.

    We started off with faith, then belief, now it's trust?

    If you are choosing to believe something that someone else doesn't, that belief is an action too, btw. I don't know if these words have more significant meanings theologically, but in general usage they are much of a muchness.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Nope, you are trusting the pilot when you actually get onto his plane, before that you are just believing that he is a competent pilot. Would you trust him with your wife alone for instance? Meaning would you leave him alone in your house for a night with her alone? If you would then that is trusting his integrity rather than just believing he could be trusted. Trust is an act of the will not just a belief held by the mind alone.
    I'm not going to argue that point with you anymore. We're just repeating ourselves


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    sink wrote: »
    Gravity is a force not matter.

    Yeah but where is its tangible substance? Does it have any? If not then how do you know it exists like the way you know radiation exists?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    OK then what about gravity? Is there actual tangible substance to gravity? Where is gravity?

    I don't need to prove a tangeable quality about gravity, the fact you don't float around like people in space do proves it exists. Can you do the same with God? Can you show me a direct result & prove he had something to do with it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I'm not going to argue that point with you anymore. We're just repeating ourselves

    OK


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Yeah but where is its tangible substance? Does it have any? If not then how do you know it exists like the way you know radiation exists?

    Stop with this ridiculous line of argument, where is your brain? If you are not going to engage it then I don't see the point of engaging you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Yeah but where is its tangible substance? Does it have any? If not then how do you know it exists like the way you know radiation exists?

    He says gravity is not matter and then you ask him to point to the substance. He just told you it doesn't have substance because it's not matter. Not everything in the universe is matter. There is also energy and one form of it is gravity. I know gravity exists because it has been proven to exist countless billions of times, unlike your god


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Can you do the same with God? Can you show me a direct result & prove he had something to do with it?

    How about the universe? The best scientific model that describes the origin of the universe is the standard big bang model. That model postulates that all matter, energy and even time itself came into existence from a nothingness state called 'the singularity' at a finite time in the past. Now you tell me how everything that now is can come from nothing and by nothing? Because if you are a proponent of that model and are an atheist then that is what you believe. That everything that now is, came from nothing and by nothing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    How about the universe? The best scientific model that describes the origin of the universe is the standard big bang model. That model postulates that all matter, energy and even time itself came into existence from a nothingness state called 'the singularity' at a finite time in the past. Now you tell me how everything that now is can come from nothing and by nothing? Because if you are a proponent of that model and are an atheist then that is what you believe. That everything that now is, came from nothing and by nothing.

    The only logical answer that it is currently humanly possible to give to that question is "I don't know". We are not yet advanced enough as a species to be able to say how the universe came into being but that does not automatically translate to "God did it" and it most definitely does not indicate that the Judeo Christian God did it. Just because you have an answer to the question does not mean it's the right answer


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    How about the universe? The best scientific model that describes the origin of the universe is the standard big bang model. That model postulates that all matter, energy and even time itself came into existence from a nothingness state called 'the singularity' at a finite time in the past. Now you tell me how everything that now is can come from nothing and by nothing? Because if you are a proponent of that model and are an atheist then that is what you believe. That everything that now is, came from nothing and by nothing.

    The singularity is not nothing, we don't know what it is exactly but the theory states that it contained all the energy (which includes matter) that the universe still contains to this day, which is far from nothing, it is in fact everything which is the opposite of nothing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    He says gravity is not matter and then you ask him to point to the substance.

    He was the one pointing out that tangible substance is proof of radiation's existence and all I asked for was the same for gravity. But he says that gravity is a force and therefore has no tangible substance but it does exist because we can see its effects. Is that proof that it exists though? I say no. But I don't doubt that gravity exists either yet I'm supposed to think that God doesn't exists because there is no tangible evidence???


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    He was the one pointing out that tangible substance is proof of radiation's existence and all I asked for was the same for gravity. But he says that gravity is a force and therefore has no tangible substance but it does exist because we can see its effects. Is that proof that it exists though? I say no. But I don't doubt that gravity exists either yet I'm supposed to think that God doesn't exists because there is no tangible evidence???
    That is again a semantical argument. Just because he used tangibility to prove one thing does not mean he has to use it to prove everything. Different things are proven in different ways

    There is no evidence of any kind of god's existence. A collection of bronze age myths are not evidence


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    He was the one pointing out that tangible substance is proof of radiation's existence and all I asked for was the same for gravity. But he says that gravity is a force and therefore has no tangible substance but it does exist because we can see its effects. Is that proof that it exists though? I say no. But I don't doubt that gravity exists either yet I'm supposed to think that God doesn't exists because there is no tangible evidence???

    Throw a stone in the air and it falls to the ground, that is tangible evidence of gravity.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The only logical answer that it is currently humanly possible to give to that question is "I don't know". We are not yet advanced enough as a species to be able to say how the universe came into being but that does not automatically translate to "God did it" and it most definitely does not indicate that the Judeo Christian God did it. Just because you have an answer to the question does not mean it's the right answer

    I'm not saying that it translates into "God did it". But the scientific evidence points squarely in the direction of an Ex Nihilo creation event. If God didn't do it then nothing did it. But how can nothing do it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    sink wrote: »
    The singularity is not nothing, we don't know what it is exactly but the theory states that it contained all the energy (which includes matter) that the universe still contains to this day, which is far from nothing, it is in fact everything which is the opposite of nothing.

    Yes but at the singularity all the laws of physics disappear so how will you ever be able to test how it came into being? You will never ever ever ever be able to know by the scientific method.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    I'm not saying that it translates into "God did it". But the scientific evidence points squarely in the direction of an Ex Nihilo creation event. If God didn't do it then nothing did it. But how can nothing do it?

    You are still making the assumption that you claim not to. Your assumption assumes that we know everything about the universe. The options are not god or nothing. As the carlsberg ad says, it's not just A or B, there's always C, C being something that we have not yet discovered or we do not yet understand

    And even if we were to accept that an all powerful creator created the universe, that does not prove the bible any more than it proves the quaran or whatever book the ancient greeks followed


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Yes but at the singularity all the laws of physics disappear so how will you ever be able to test how it came into being? You will never ever ever ever be able to know by the scientific method.

    Now that is a bold and entirely baseless assumption unless you happen to be in possession of a time machine which has allowed you to ask the last man who will ever live


Advertisement