A question for believers

GeorgiaBob said:

And to all: The fact is, science cannot prove nor disprove faith. Neither can physicists, theorists, math wizards, biochemists, anthropologists, nor any of the other guys with all them letters after their names, actually prove (with existing tech) anything from zero state, big bang, star formation, spontaneous organic life, evolution, or man made catastrophic global warming (AGW).

What all those qualified experts (and a few quacks) can do is establish a theory and work on knocking it apart. In simplistic terms - that is the scientific method. Big Bang has been beat up a lot, but still hangs around because it tends to explain more than any other theory. Evolution survives, in spite of several knocks, because most of the evidence we find can be made to fit without too much twisting. But evolution, as it is now taught, is known to be missing some significant information that could seriously change the theory. That is how science works, theories that don't get DISproven hang around and get adjusted until everyone (or most everyone) accepts that no other theory works as well, most of the time. In the real world, science is NEVER absolute (or "settled")!

But I am hopeful (and prayerful) that you will find room in your thoughts to consider the possibility that your faith in NO god may just be slightly in error.

Click to expand...

You could say that Atomic Theory and Relativity have been "beat up" as well. This process of "beating up" theories should be celebrated, not looked upon as a weakness in the scientific method or falseness of its discoveries. I think what we A/A's do is try to apply scientific method to faith; to "beat it up"; to "beat the truth out of it". But then: "The fact is, science cannot prove nor disprove faith."

I really admire the scientific method. It gives me insight into many things that help me navigate my world. If I understand the evolutionary underpinnings of empathy, love, beauty, compassion, justice, they aren't diminished in their awesomeness if I know that they come from some workings of the jelly in my head (not that awesomeness in itself makes something valuable). Indeed, I feel closer to them, like they're mine. I like to dabble in the Political Forum occasionally and one of the things that comes up regularly are "Rights". Many in there believe that they have certain rights given to them by God Himself. That doesn't leave allot of room to discuss them. And that's my main problem with people who believe that they have some insight into the will of God either through revelation in a text or from individual experience. Their assertions are untestable. There's a better test.

I've heard many faith based beliefs defended by their adherents by saying "Science is the wrong tool to experience God's grace". What else is there? My feelings? I know them to be unreliable. I know them to be biased and subjective. That doesn't mean that I don't revel in them. They're part of me and they allow me to "experienc[e] grace in the presence of unimaginable pain, beauty where none should be, peace where common sense would require ugly volume, and forgiveness when I simply do not deserve it", particularly when understood through the best faculty God gave me, should He be shown to exist, and that's my ability to reason. If He doesn't exist, I still have this amazing capacity to reason. It doesn't give me all the answers but it gives me the best ones I have available and it's subject to the scrutiny of someonelse's ability to reason, unlike faith. Just show me and I'll helplessly believe.

This is why I've abandoned faith as a sound method for determining the truth about reality.

GeorgiaBob said:

Bullethead, I believe in one God, one creator, one creation. My belief is based upon a lifetime of experiencing grace in the presence of unimaginable pain, beauty where none should be, peace where common sense would require ugly volume, and forgiveness when I simply do not deserve it. The details would require far too many pages to type on this site (I happen to be a terrible and clumsy typist), so suffice it to say, my life experience led me to a grace-full God. And I do not "worship" God as much as I celebrate that I have had the good fortune to experience a little of God's creation.

Click to expand...

Since science (the revelatory method of reason) can neither prove or disprove faith, then faith is truly subjective. One has faith because one chooses to have faith. I've eliminated faith as something reliable and even useful as I can achieve all those things you list above without it. To decide to live by faith is arbitrary and it allows the adherent to "explain" things without explaining them at all. I suppose that can be comforting in a world where there's so much we don't know about but it loses it's luster when one realizes we can do better than faith. One of these days we'll be able to throw "switches" in someone's brain and they will no longer believe in God nor want to.

Israel said:

Oh, OK, for me that makes it remarkably simple.

The substance of the man who testifies to it, and wrote it, as against the substance of the man who refutes it.

It simply comes down to the substance of each.

Click to expand...

ambush80 said:

One of these days we'll be able to throw "switches" in someone's brain and they will no longer believe in God nor want to.

Click to expand...

Hold on, Isreal. One day there will be a cure.

Israel said:

Oh, OK, for me that makes it remarkably simple.

The substance of the man who testifies to it, and wrote it, as against the substance of the man who refutes it.

It simply comes down to the substance of each.

Click to expand...

Who wrote it Israel?

Ambush, have you ever considered writing some apocalyptic fantasy?
The genre is a little passé, but I hear the pay is good;
and you already have the title —"Switches";
and the tag line—"your brain of choice".

Hey, maybe it will go Hollywood.
Then we can say, "We knew Ambush when ..."

hummerpoo said:

Ambush, have you ever considered writing some apocalyptic fantasy?
The genre is a little passé, but I hear the pay is good;
and you already have the title —"Switches";
and the tag line—"your brain of choice".

Hey, maybe it will go Hollywood.
Then we can say, "We knew Ambush when ..."

Click to expand...

Already been done, read revelations.

hummerpoo said:

Ambush, have you ever considered writing some apocalyptic fantasy?
The genre is a little passé, but I hear the pay is good;
and you already have the title —"Switches";
and the tag line—"your brain of choice".

Hey, maybe it will go Hollywood.
Then we can say, "We knew Ambush when ..."

Click to expand...

I'm not fond of the genre. You should do it. I was having a conversation with my Mom and she was telling me that she believes that my Dad is in the Heaven that he imagined.

bullethead said:

Already been done, read revelations.

Click to expand...

Touche.

Israel said:

Oh, OK, for me that makes it remarkably simple.

The substance of the man who testifies to it, and wrote it, as against the substance of the man who refutes it.

It simply comes down to the substance of each.

Click to expand...

Actually no.
Pretty much the opposite.

Israel said:

Oh, OK, for me that makes it remarkably simple.

The substance of the man who testifies to it, and wrote it, as against the substance of the man who refutes it.

It simply comes down to the substance of each.

Click to expand...

WaltL1 said:

Actually no.
Pretty much the opposite.

Click to expand...

What do you mean, Walt?

hummerpoo said:

Ambush, have you ever considered writing some apocalyptic fantasy?
The genre is a little passé, but I hear the pay is good;
and you already have the title —"Switches";
and the tag line—"your brain of choice".

Hey, maybe it will go Hollywood.
Then we can say, "We knew Ambush when ..."

Click to expand...

Here's your sci-fi story:

Would it be good to be able to "throw the switches" in the mind of a captured jihadist? A sociopathic, cannibal, rapist, murderer? If we could, would it be good or bad to throw the switches in EVERYBODY's brains so that they believe that Jesus is Lord? Are they saved?

Things that make me go Hmmmmmm.....

Pretty much, yes.
And of course we can get in the "what is knowing" debate.
But we as humans have developed certain systems that we rely on. The judicial system goes round and round and much of it starts with - "We don't know what happened but we can rule out these possibilities based on the evidence".
As we sit here, this -

Is a statement that is backed up by the facts/figures/scientific/historical evidence that is available to us.
You couldn't prove that statement wrong by a preponderance of the evidence without pulling out the "you just gotta believe" card.
But like I said - "as we sit here". We could sit somewhere else tomorrow. But until then....

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Israel
Oh, OK, for me that makes it remarkably simple.
The substance of the man who testifies to it, and wrote it, as against the substance of the man who refutes it.

It simply comes down to the substance of each

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by WaltL1
Actually no.
Pretty much the opposite.

Click to expand...

ambush80 said:

What do you mean, Walt?

Click to expand...

Its not the substance of the man who testifies to it or refutes it that matters.
Its the substance of what is being testified to or refuted that matters.
Note that my post was about -

certain systems

Click to expand...

possibilities based on the evidence".

Click to expand...

facts/figures/scientific/historical evidence that is available to us.

Click to expand...

preponderance of the evidence

Click to expand...

Evidence is what evidence is regardless of the substance of the men who testify to it or refute it.
You may view the evidence through the substance of who you are but the evidence either will or will not support your view regardless.

ambush80 said:

Here's your sci-fi story:

Would it be good to be able to "throw the switches" in the mind of a captured jihadist? A sociopathic, cannibal, rapist, murderer? If we could, would it be good or bad to throw the switches in EVERYBODY's brains so that they believe that Jesus is Lord? Are they saved?

Things that make me go Hmmmmmm.....

Click to expand...

Would it be good to throw any of the hypothesized switchs until every consequence was known with certainty?

ambush80 said:

Here's your sci-fi story:

Would it be good to be able to "throw the switches" in the mind of a captured jihadist? A sociopathic, cannibal, rapist, murderer? If we could, would it be good or bad to throw the switches in EVERYBODY's brains so that they believe that Jesus is Lord? Are they saved?

Things that make me go Hmmmmmm.....

Click to expand...

All depends on which one of our Christian friends you ask
The Bible says......

WaltL1 said:

Its not the substance of the man who testifies to it or refutes it that matters.
Its the substance of what is being testified to or refuted that matters.
Note that my post was about -




Evidence is what evidence is regardless of the substance of the men who testify to it or refute it.
You may view the evidence through the substance of who you are but the evidence either will or will not support your view regardless.

Click to expand...

Precisely.

When it is Zebras the hoof beats heard are those of Zebras.

ambush80 said:

Here's your sci-fi story:

Would it be good to be able to "throw the switches" in the mind of a captured jihadist? A sociopathic, cannibal, rapist, murderer? If we could, would it be good or bad to throw the switches in EVERYBODY's brains so that they believe that Jesus is Lord? Are they saved?

Things that make me go Hmmmmmm.....

Click to expand...

Cannot hi lite on this computer the words believe, saved, and "me".

Israel said:

Precisely.

When it is Zebras the hoof beats heard are those of Zebras.

Click to expand...

Precisely.
Precisely the opposite of this -

The substance of the man who testifies to it, and wrote it, as against the substance of the man who refutes it

Click to expand...

When it is Zebras the hoof beats heard are those of Zebras.

Click to expand...

Yes if the hoof beats that were heard were in fact zebras then the hoof beats that were heard were in fact zebras.
But before you know if they were in fact zebras you could eliminate that they were chickens. So -

"We don't know what happened but we can rule out these possibilities based on the evidence".

Click to expand...

WaltL1 said:

Its not the substance of the man who testifies to it or refutes it that matters.
Its the substance of what is being testified to or refuted that matters.
Note that my post was about -




Evidence is what evidence is regardless of the substance of the men who testify to it or refute it.
You may view the evidence through the substance of who you are but the evidence either will or will not support your view regardless.

Click to expand...

Ah, yes. I understand.

hummerpoo said:

Would it be good to throw any of the hypothesized switchs until every consequence was known with certainty?

Click to expand...

That's kind of what I was assuming. I was assuming that ALL the switches in the brain had been mapped out. But maybe that's the plot wrinkle in the story.....

WaltL1 said:

All depends on which one of our Christian friends you ask
The Bible says......

Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, the only thing that gets one saved is believing that Jesus is Lord. One of these days we will be able to make people truly believe that by throwing a "switch".

Israel said:

Cannot hi lite on this computer the words believe, saved, and "me".

Click to expand...

What would you be trying to express by highlighting those words?

But the words came through man in both cases...the hoof beats.

And there's reason in each word.