6169428

If science and reason are the only means of knowing anything for certain...

I reject the assumptions in your question. I don’t believe anything can be known with absolute certainty (except maybe ‘I think therefore I am’).
I could be a brain in a vat and everything I’ve ever seen and experienced is just a delusion produced by my own mind, or an interactive simulation being fed into my mind like in the Matrix. There is no solution to hard solipsism.
That being said, it appears that I am in a world with certain laws that I share with other thinking beings. There is also no evidence that I am just a brain in a vat or in the matrix, so I will with hold belief from those world views until evidence is provided.

...then can you provide scientific proof for the reliability of human reason without circularly depending on human reason to provide that proof?

Human reasoning isn’t necessarily reliable, that’s why we rely on the scientific method of testing our models of reality against the reality we all evidently inhabit.
Is science perfect? Maybe not, but what’s the alternative? Faith? Science is a self correcting system, if a wrong conclusion has been reached then science will eventually correct it through obvervation and experimentation. Faith is simply believing something for no good reason. There is literally nothing that a person couldn’t believe on faith. If you care about making your internal model of reality match the reality that we all apparently share then faith is not the correct method, science is.

If I make a claim about reality then the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate it. Some of the others on this thread have made claims about reality (gods existence, the bible being divinely inspired, the Holy Spirit, etc) so they have the burden of proving these claims. So far, they have not done so.

Does that answer your question? I feel like your question had a slight presuppositionalist flavour to it, a treat for me as I’ve never met an actual presuppositionalist before!

6169609
I disagree with this video. Not on the subject of absolute knowledge, this video was spot on there. It’s just the use of the term ‘faith’.
Faith has two major uses, one is synonymous with trust based on evidence, the other is belief without or in spite of opposing evidence. To avoid confusion, I only use it in the second form and avoid using the first form. I don’t assume other people are using one or the other, I always ask what they mean by faith or ask for evidence. If they give faith as the reason then they are clearly using the second meaning.
My observations, when confirmed by other people and repeatable experiments, are not taken on faith, they are based on a preponderance of evidence. If the preponderance of evidence ever contradicts my observations then I will follow the evidence because I do not rely on faith.
The video talked about certain postulates that had to be ‘taken on faith’. It was using the first meaning, so to avoid any confusion I would have said the postulates were tentatively accepted based on the circumstantial evidence that they seem to be true. When new observations came along (like the space/time effects of astrophysics) then the postulate is abandoned. That’s not faith in the religious sense, that’s following the evidence.
Ask any scientist why they believe or accept something and they will NEVER give ‘faith’ as the reason. They will explain how they came to the tentative conclusion they came to. This is something that is supported by the video you shared.

If I might ask, what makes you sure in your belief in the axioms of science?

You are welcome to ask! 😁 Science is the single most reliable method to discovering truth of our reality ever invented. Faith, feelings, intuition, and induction are not reliable paths to truth. Am I sure of it? Not absolutely, but I don’t believe in absolutes. I am tentatively convinced based on evidence.
I don’t take anything on faith, that includes science. I base my beliefs on evidence because that’s the best way to get the closest as possible to the truth of reality.
Please feel free to ask me to prove any assertion about reality I make, and please be ready for me to ask you to do the same thing.

A sermon my pastor gave about a year ago was about how God revealed new truths about himself as His people could accept them. He also pointed out that we are to keep digging for new truths, just like in science.

I’m glad your pastor is encouraging you to dig for new truths, but I’m wondering what reason your pastor has to believe that there is a god that has revealed any truths to anyone.

There is also the thought experiment of the ancester simulation...

I addressed this a bit in my response to Sunlight Solace. Long story short, we might be in a simulation. There’s no way to prove we aren’t, just like there’s no way to prove there’s no god, so I will be consistent and withhold belief in both these world views until such time as there is evidence one way or the other.
It should also be pointed out that even if we are in a simulation, so far the rules governing this simulation appear to be consistent and discoverable. The scientific method works just as well exploring the ‘real world’ as it does exploring the workings of the matrix.

One can assume there is no higher power

Yes they could, I think that is equally as irational as assuming there is a higher power. That’s why I’m what is sometimes called a soft atheist. I don’t affirm there is no god, I simply don’t hold the belief that there is a god.

I suppose faith can be likened unto the stock market. A nondescript guy says to invest in QWERTY stock. QWERTY hasn't done well in the past, but this guy has a history of being dead right every time if you bother to look him up. Do you trust him?

I reject this analogy.
1) I might have a degree* of trust in him, but that trust is not faith because it’s based on his track record. I can meet him and speak to him so I have good reason to think he’s real. I can ask him his reasons for thinking this stock is going to improve. I can research the company in question. I can learn what method this nondescript guy uses to invest successfully and apply it myself. Most importantly, I can simply wait and see if the stock goes up or down.
2) I’m not questioning some guys claim about a certain stocks performance, I’m questioning the existance of the company that the stock is claiming to represent. The company has no employees, no customers, no products, no property, no revenue, no incorporation papers, and yet it’s a stock that people are betting their life savings on. I’m just the guy saying ‘hey is this even a real company?’ And if your nondescript Guy say ‘I have faith that it is’ then all I have to ask is: Doesn’t that sound like a scam to you?

*I forget who did this but there was a neat scam where some guy gave a bunch of rich people stock tips. He said he was psychic or figured out some algorithm or something. He gave half his audience the advice that a certain stock would go up and the other half the advice that it would go down. The half that he was correct with he did the same thing with another stock. He kept doing this until he had about 4 people that he had correctly predicted 20 stock moves in a row (from their perspective). He approached them with one final tip that they should invest ALL their money in this one company because it was going to blow up and make them all wildly rich. I can’t remember if only one guy did or only one didn’t, but it turned out this company was a shell corporation that the scammer owned. He made off with the life savings of the poor people that trusted him. There are other examples of similar games that people can play I could give you, bottom line is that the proof is in the pudding. Believing something without evidence is not a reliable path to truth. These guys had evidence that the scammer was right 20 times in a row, they didn’t have any evidence that he would be right the 21st time other than their inductive reasoning.

Do you believe there is a god?
More importantly: why or why not and how did you come to your conclusion?

6169130

 It is literally make believe.

I think it's a bit more concrete than that

One more question if you’re up to it: If it turned out that there was no god or afterlife would you want to know, or is it more important for you that your beliefs are comforting?

I think by the time I figure out about the afterlife it'll be a little too late to change anything

6170651

I think it's a bit more concrete than that

It really isn’t. There were other problems with your post I could have exposed, but it’s not necessary. If you are relying on Faith for any part of your reasoning, then your conclusion is not rationally justified. Faith is not a reliable path to truth, I can demonstrate this if you want just ask.

I think by the time I figure out about the afterlife it'll be a little too late to change anything

So you haven’t figured out about the afterlife yet? My bad, I got the impression you were claiming to have good reason to believe there is an afterlife. I agree that nobody knows for sure until after we die. That’s why I’m an atheist, why would anyone believe something before there is evidence of it?

Do you care if your beliefs are real or is comfort more important for you?

One of the major pieces of evidence for the Bible are its prophecies. Now, it has been a while since I've been through the whole lot of them, and I'm only familiar with the Seventh-day Adventist interpretations. But I understand different denominations interpret them differently.
Prophecies can be used to point out the raise, fall, and personalities of empires and kingdoms. By matching up the the prophecies with events that came true, one can apply the same rules to unfulfilled prophecies and get an idea of what is yet to come.

One of the better known prophecies is found in Daniel. It covers Babalon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and the ten kingdoms Rome split into. One prophecy even mentions a new nation coming into existence from a sparsely populated land with two separated power bases and appears to be all innocent but commands terrible things. The US fits the description rarher nicely. North America, separation of church and state, awesome ideals, but look at how we have trod on one group after another. I understand other prophecies foretold the fall of Constantinople and the Papacy uprooting three of the kingdoms Rome broke into. (There are quite a few about the Papacy that have come true.)

There was one major chain of prophecy pointing to Jesus "cleansing the temple" exactly 173 years ago to the day, Oct. 22 1844. They took the temple to mean Earth and that he was coming back to take his people to Heaven on that day. Needless to say, they were in for a Great Disappointment. People set everything in order and nothing happened. Many fell away from belief, but those who didn't chucked their axiem about the temple and reevaluated their understanding in pursuit of the truth as given by the Bible. "Cleansing the temple" was happening in Heaven; the judgement pointed forward to by the annual Day of Attonement. Without going into the fine details, they adjusted their beliefs to that Jesus will come again when He is done judging all people who ever lived.

I know a prophecy dump probably wasn't something you were looking for, but I have more if there is interest.

On another note, I'm still having trouble understanding the difference between the two different types of faith you distinguish. As I understand:
1. A blind man following a stranger's instructions through a minefield.
2. A blind man saying he's in a minefield because he says he's in a minefield?

6170726

One of the major pieces of evidence for the Bible are its prophecies.

On another note, I'm still having trouble understanding the difference between the two different types of faith you distinguish. As I understand:
1. A blind man following a stranger's instructions through a minefield.
2. A blind man saying he's in a minefield because he says he's in a minefield?

No, that’s not it. I’d say the first usage is synonymous with trust. If I say I have faith in my girl friend it’s the equivalent of saying I trust my gf. If some one asks me why I have faith in my gf then I would give reasons: we’ve been together 2 years and I’ve seen her character, she’s reliable and honest and has integrity and this one time at Marine Land... I’m giving reasons for my faith/trust.

On the second usage faith is synonymous with belief (and trust, they are really close) but it’s also given as a reason for belief. Someone could say ‘I have faith in the bible’ and they can mean they trust the bible and that’s kind of indistinguishable from the first usage. I’ll then ask ‘why do you have faith/trust in the bible?’ and they answer ‘I have faith’ or ‘because of faith’. If faith=belief or faith=trust then that’s a problem. Saying ‘I believe in God because of my faith’ is the equivalent of saying ‘I believe in god because I believe in god’. I care less about what you believe then why you believe it, relying on faith as the reason is simply repeating what you believe. It is circular reasoning and it is not a reliable path to truth.

To use your analogy, a man (he doesn’t have to be blind because mines are burried underground and are effectively invisible) is sitting on a rock in the middle of a field. He refuses to leave the rock because he says he’s in a mine field. You and I walk across the mine field and don’t get blown up, we show him X-rays of the surrounding area proving there are no mines. We offer to walk ahead of him through the field so that he can escape. He politely declines because even though we have reasons to think there is no mine field, he has faith that there is and he doesn’t want to get blown up. He will claim that we just got lucky but our luck could run out on the way back and one wrong step... boom. He might argue that X-rays aren’t reliable, or that limestone can mask metal from X-rays (pretend that it can). When we get a geologist to confirm that the area has no limestone then he’ll come back with the idea of plastic mines that don’t show up on X-rays. There is no evidence that there is or ever was a minefield in this area but he has faith that there is. Does that way of thinking sound familiar? (4 links there)

In the other usage, a man sitting on the rock believes there is a mine field. We walk up and ask why and he points to a bunch of dead bodies that were blown up. He shows us shraplel still stuck in his leg. He points out that a few years ago this region was in a civil war and the mines were built at X facility over there. We X-ray the ground and find dozens of metal objects. We throw a rock at one and it blows up. This mans has faith (belief) that there is a mine field, but the reason he believes is evidence and not faith. We were very lucky that we didn’t get blown up.

It’s interesting because conversations with theists often (not always) follow a pattern. They start with what they believe, they give what sounds like reasons but is really just repeating what they believe, then it comes down to faith. They sometimes try to claim faith is a good thing until I destroy that idea with one simple question. Next they try to argue that I have faith in things too so our two positions are somehow equally unproven and therefore just a matter of opinion. This is an equivocation fallacy. Sometimes they will even try to undermine reason, suggesting that reality is wrong before their supernatural claims could be wrong. I don’t use the word faith in the first sense to prevent myself from being misquoted and misunderstood. I do not have faith in the second sense at all. If you point out a belief that I carry on faith (belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary) then I will abandon that belief. That’s what it means to care about truth. If you rely on faith and I rely on reason and evidence then our two positions are not equal. Does that clear things up? Language can be tricky sometimes, especially English with all its synonyms and stuff lol.

6170651

I think it's a bit more concrete than that

I think by the time I figure out about the afterlife it'll be a little too late to change anything

I think this, I think that.
This is all your arguments ever boil down to - opinionated, biased interpretations of things that only conform to the things you're already preaching (conformation bias) grounded in the narcissistic hot air of "anyone who doesn't see things how I do is not a true yada yada yada" no true Scotsman fallacy.
Stop it.

There are certain archeological pieces that don't quite fit in line with the timeline as proposed by evolution*. A set of human and dinosaur footprints together, one human footprint inside the dino print; a steel knife found in a lump of coal (even a radio missing only a couple parts); fossilized trees spanning many rock layers; some ancient masonry depicting a particularly long necked dinosaur; even a handbill for a bounty on a dragon (possible dinosaur being hunted to extinction).

I have no one reason for having faith, but many. I don't always remember everything right away, but it's a combination of many of the things brought up. I would have gone for an offshoot of the Watchmaker argument, but that's already been brought up.

*Common Evolution arguments go after the Flood and Noah's Ark. I have seen calculations go both high and low on this one. Using baby/young/pregnant animals, the Ark may have even been 2/3 vacant, plenty of room for anyone who wanted to come along for the ride.

6169968

Does that answer your question?

Yes and no.

Human reasoning isn’t necessarily reliable, that’s why we rely on the scientific method of testing our models of reality against the reality we all evidently inhabit.

How exactly do we make use of the scientific method without employing human reason to formulate hypotheses, collect data, and analyze and interpret the results? Also, how did we discover the scientific method, if not by way of human reason? Our understanding of the scientific method may be incorrect, thus rendering it unreliable as well. Science and reason go hand in hand.

I don’t believe anything can be known with absolute certainty

If nothing can be known with absolute certainty, then you cannot know for certain that nothing can be known with absolute certainty. Thus, a belief system that asserts that nothing can be known with absolute certainty is internally inconsistent. Any unproven claim to truth made about reality (including that nothing can be known with absolute certainty, or that we don't know whether anything can be known with absolute certainty) is either directly or indirectly dependent on one or more unproven assumptions. This is inescapable. There is no neutral ground. Assumptions (read: faith) are a fundamental part of any belief system, whether the adherent wishes to acknowledge it or not.

Believing that things can be known with absolute certain may require faith in the reliability of human reason, but such a belief system can at least still be internally consistent.

If you care about making your internal model of reality match the reality that we all apparently share then faith is not the correct method, science is.

As I've already stated, if we can't rely on human reason, then we can't really rely on science either, which renders vain any attempt to reconcile our internal conceptions of reality with perceived reality. In order to rely on science, we must rely on reason, which requires faith in the reliability of reason.

6171186

How exactly do we make use of the scientific method without employing human reason to formulate hypotheses, collect data, and analyze and interpret the results?

We use human senses to collect data and we use communication to corroborate that data with others. The scientific method is used to create and test models that seek to explain the data. We use human reason to think of an explanation and then we use the scientific method to test it.

Also, how did we discover the scientific method, if not by way of human reason?

It was discovered/invented through a combination of human reason and trial and error.

Our understanding of the scientific method may be incorrect, thus rendering it unreliable as well.

There is no SCIENTIFIC METHOD that exists in nature for us to correctly or incorrectly understand. The scientific method is a label we put on a process that has demonstrated itself to be reliable over time. The process may not be perfect (I’ve already mentioned this) but so far it’s the most reliable method yet devised. Why do I say that? Because so far it’s worked and I have a reasonable expectation that it will continue to work.

Science and reason go hand in hand.

I think I agree, can you please define what you mean by ‘reason’.

If nothing can be known with absolute certainty, then you cannot know for certain that nothing can be known with absolute certainty.

I agree, that’s why I said that I don’t believe in absolute knowledge. A better way to word it is that I have yet to be convinced that it’s possible to know anything with absolute certainty, so I therefore withhold belief. If someone claims to know something with absolute certainty then they have a burden of proof.

Thus, a belief system that asserts that nothing can be known with absolute certainty is internally inconsistent.

I agree. If someone where to try and argue that they were absolutely certain that you can’t know anything for certain then they are contradicting themselves.

Any unproven claim to truth made about reality (including that nothing can be known with absolute certainty, or that we don't know whether anything can be known with absolute certainty) is either directly or indirectly dependent on one or more unproven assumptions. This is inescapable. There is no neutral ground. Assumptions (read: faith) are a fundamental part of any belief system, whether the adherent wishes to acknowledge it or not.

I think I disagree with you here, but I’m not sure I am understanding you. Can you reword this and break it down a bit please?

Believing that things can be known with absolute certain may require faith in the reliability of human reason, but such a belief system can at least still be internally consistent.

It can be internally consistent, but is it true? The world of Harry Potter might be internally consistent, but there is no reason to think it’s real. Hopefully you read my post on the two definitions of faith. I don’t have any faith (in the religious sense) in human reason. I have confidence in human reason that is based on and proportional to the evidence. Its possible that the whole world I am experiencing is a delusion, until that is proven I am withholding belief in that world view. I am therefore left with the world that my senses allow me to interact with. It apparently follows certain rules and these rules seem to be discoverable and testable.

As I've already stated, if we can't rely on human reason,

I’m sorry, I don’t see where you or I stated that. I’ll agree that human reason is not perfectly reliable, but it is also not completely unreliable. When paired with the tool of science it lets us get closer to the truth of reality than our reason alone.

then we can't really rely on science either, which renders vain any attempt to reconcile our internal conceptions of reality with perceived reality.

I’m not sure how you got to that conclusion. Even if I accepted the premise that human reasoning is not reliable at all (I don’t, you have to demonstrate that first), that still doesn’t get you to ‘it’s useless to try and understand reality at all’. It would be difficult and stressful and we might fail at it resulting in our extinction, but that doesn’t mean its useless to try. At least I don’t think so, perhaps when you respond and expand on what you mean I’ll better understand you and change my mind.

The more important thing is that when we look at reality, the project of squaring our internal model of reality with the reality we inhabit is fruitful. Virtually everything about our civilization is testimony to the successful application of the scientific method. Could it all be a delusion? Sure. Is there any evidence for that? Not to my knowledge. So following the only evidence we have access to we find that 2+2=4 is true in the past and present and we expect it to continue to be true in the future. If it ever turns out not to be true then we will abandon that postulate and try to find a new one that better fits with reality. If you care about truth, and truth is defined as that which comports to the reality we inhabit (whether it’s a ‘real’ reality or the Matrix), then you follow evidence.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that faith (belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary) is a reliable path to truth?

6171109
I’m not sure why you are talking about evolution as it has nothing to do with theism or atheism. For the sake of argument I’ll grant you that evolution is false and doesn’t make any sense at all. We have a planet full of life and no proven explanation on where it came from or how it became so diverse. What next?

I have no one reason for having faith, but many.

In that sentence you seem to be using faith in the trust/belief meaning. I would love to hear as many reasons as you can/would like to provide, but first I have a question.

If your belief/faith in god is based on evidence and reason then there is a set number of reasons that have convinced you to believe. Maybe 5, maybe 500, but let’s pretend it’s 5. I picture it like the legs on a table. If one reason is disproven then there are still 4 others and your conclusion is justifiable. Suppose we go through every single reason that you believe in god and they all turn out to be unsound. You don’t have one single good reason to believe. Your table is now a tripping hazard, not a table.
Would you then abandon the belief, or go out and find more reasons?

<Not Serious>When all the legs of the table are sawed off, I would have a table to sit at cross leged. </Not Serious>

I would go out and find more if need be.

Many reasons are from personal experience: Appliences/vehicles lasting longer, a near perfect survival rate when we raised baby rabbits for a mission offering, answered requests to prayers for signs (both 'yes' and 'no'); many of the strongest reasons are generated after entering into belief.

I understand you are looking for reasons someone would start; I was raised in faith and cultivated reasons to stay. Others' personal stories are a place to start, but as one illistration put it, its like a prechewed doughnut. One does not get the full experience without getting one of their own.

Am I still sounding circular in my reasoning?

6172196

I would go out and find more if need be.

Why?

Am I still sounding circular in my reasoning?

No, the reasons you gave aren’t circular. Good job ! I’m very interested in hearing more about your answered prayer, but I want to get an answer to the above question first.

6170665

Faith is not a reliable path to truth, I can demonstrate this if you want just ask.

What does truth mean in this context? always been confused about philosophy

So you haven’t figured out about the afterlife yet?

Nah I meant if I found no afterlife it would be too late. But I won't.

Do you care if your beliefs are real or is comfort more important for you?

Absolutely care if they're real. It's the foundation for my life and purpose.

6171007

This is all your arguments ever boil down to - opinionated, biased interpretations of things that only conform to the things you're already preaching (conformation bias) grounded in the narcissistic hot air of "anyone who doesn't see things how I do is not a true yada yada yada" no true Scotsman fallacy.
Stop it.

If I didn't preach things that conform to Christianity I wouldn't be preaching the truth.

6172218

I'd like to think of all the little reasons as points of data. When gathering statistics, each data point alone is a possible anomaly. Taken together, one can start to notice statistical anomalies.

As for more data points from my family, in no particular chronological order, when I was looking for a confirmation on where to attend college, my family prayed for something in the mail from them within the next week. A magazine arrived from them the next day.

We prayed for all our baby rabbits to survive until we weren't supposed to raise them anymore. We had between 50 and 75 kittens come through and only one or two die at the end. The usual mortality rate is about 1/5.

We prayed for the right house when moving recently. One of the houses we really wanted but were outbid on burned to the ground in the CA fires this month. Nothing but ashes.

We got a "no" when buisness never went anywhere with a company that would likely have pushed us to compromise our values later on.

When we were getting our first dog, my mother prayed that the right one melt my father's heart and she kept silent about it. At the shelter, my father said, "she melts my heart." He about never says that. We got the puppy.

When my father has young, there was interest in attending some meetings by a certain Jim Jones. Something always came up just before it was time to go.

When choosing a kitten, I asked for a playful cuddler. Two traits I hear are usually mutually exclusive in cats. I must have met about the one exception. True, he is a pest sometimes, but he is the right cat for me.

A ranger randomly found the car a class field trip was in. The battery had run out and we had no reception (and maybe no phones). We tried to bump start it down the hill, but to no use. The ranger jumped the car even though he technically wasn't supposed to, and we were on our way. At the time, I was seriously wondering I'd it was an angel, but now, maybe not so much.

Those are the most memorable accounts I could come up with. Many smaller things, like being a blessing to a pair of hungry beggars, are there; but get forgotten as time goes on.

6172279
The definition I’m using here is that which comports with reality.

Nah I meant if I found no afterlife it would be too late. But I won't.

How do you know that?

Absolutely care if they're real. It's the foundation for my life and purpose.

I’m glad to hear you say that. If you really do care about truth then why do you think it’s a good idea to take anything on faith?

If I didn't preach things that conform to Christianity I wouldn't be preaching the truth.

What is your definition of truth here?

6172381

I'd like to think of all the little reasons as points of data. When gathering statistics, each data point alone is a possible anomaly. Taken together, one can start to notice statistical anomalies.

Yes, a preponderance of evidence. This is a good strategy, as long as your data points are reliable. In order for them to be reliable, each one has to stand on its own merit. Your data points do not stand on their own merit, they rely on each other to prop themselves up.

I find your examples of answered prayer entirely unconvincing. The plural of anecdote is not evidence. 0+0+0+0 enough times does not equal 1.
Everyone of your examples could have been a coincidence. How did you determine that god is responsible somehow? How did you rule out coincidence?
Do you know what confirmation bias is?

Edit: Also you forgot to answer my earlier question: if every reason to believe something turned out to be an unsound reason, why would you then go out and look for more reasons to believe?

6172279

If I didn't preach things that conform to Christianity I wouldn't be preaching the truth.

Funny, that's what followers of every religion and every sub-religion (including those of Christianity) say. You trying to claim truth in the specific Christian things you preach makes you no more relevant than someone trying to preach that Santa exists because there are books and movies about him.

6171674
I'm not going to take the time to respond to all of your questions, as some of the disagreement seems to stem from my lack of familiarity with the proper philosophical terminology for the ideas I'm trying to express. In particular, I must be misunderstanding your use of the term "reason."

I suppose I can concede that a disbelief that anything can be known for certain isn't necessarily internally inconsistent.

To be clear, I don't believe that the scientific method is a concept that exists independently in nature. My intent wasn't to claim that I did.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that faith (belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary) is a reliable path to truth?

I consider it more of a starting point, than a path. If an assumption about reality is provably false, then it must be rejected. But if an assumption about reality is at least plausible, then it need not be abandoned in order to be compatible with scientific knowledge.

6172449

In response to getting more reasons, I can look to the stories from those around me. There are also stories from believers under the hot spot, like Desmond Does, a medic in WWII and the first conscientious objector to be awarded the Medal of Honor. One story as told by a captured enemy soldier goes that his gun would jam whenever he aimed at that particular medic, but it worked anywhere else.

As I pointed out earlier, each one of my personal experiences in isolation is easily falsifiable, but so are each of the photon pairs from decaying Higgs Bosons and other discoveries made by analyzing patterns among apparent coincidences. I can liken each experience unto a thread. Over time, enough experiences build up to form a sturdy rope; no one thread bears the weight of everything.

In response to 0+0+0+0, I was thinking of comparing to the calculus integral, but I would be boasting if I claimed an infinite number of experiences. Rather, each one has a small value that adds up to something.

The rabbit kittens by themselves provide a statisticaly valid sample size of 30 or more. Though that number was for a bell curve and this is binary.

Sorry if I come across as having a bunch of disjoint paragraphs, I am trying to put a lot of thought in, but I keep getting more ideas as I write.

6172507

In particular, I must be misunderstanding your use of the term "reason."

I don’t think you are, I’m just not following Matt Slicks script and you’re too honest to knowingly misrepresent me.
Reason is a method of thinking, it’s taking in information and processing it. It’s using observations and experiences from the past to make predictions about the future. This is a whole massive topic that is not really worth getting too far into here.
The presuppositionalist script, in my experience, presents a false dichotomy where human reason is either completly unjustified or it’s perfect. Because nobody can honestly claim it’s perfect that means it’s unjustified. This ignores the possibility that it’s somewhat reliable and through cooperation, trial and error, and other tools like the scientific method and double blind studies we can improve the accuracy of our internal models of reality. It’s not perfect, but it doesn’t have to be perfect to be useful and claiming otherwise is a nirvana fallacy.

I suppose I can concede that a disbelief that anything can be known for certain isn't necessarily internally inconsistent.

Thanks!

To be clear, I don't believe that the scientific method is a concept that exists independently in nature. My intent wasn't to claim that I did.

Yes, I agree. It wasn’t my intention to imply that you did, I just wanted to try and be as clear as possible.

I consider it more of a starting point, than a path.

I’m not sure what you mean here. I’m saying that faith is not a reliable method to reach truth. It doesn’t matter if you start with it or end with it, the moment faith enters the equation you have divided by zero.
I say that because with faith you can believe literally anything, including things that we can prove are false. If I can believe a true thing on faith and a false thing on faith, then this proves that faith doesn’t differentiate between true and false. Therefore if we are interested in finding truth we cannot use faith.

Maybe you are referring to the assumption that reality is real here? I agree that we can’t prove this with absolute certainty, but we have good evidence that reality is real. If we found evidence to the contrary then we (or at least I) would follow the evidence. That means it’s not faith.

If an assumption about reality is provably false, then it must be rejected.

My definition of faith is belief without or in spite of contradictory evidence. If you are willing to reject beliefs that are demonstrably false (like the flood myth for example) then you are not taking it on what I’m calling faith. We agree that something proven within the evidence of our reality to be false needs to be disregarded.

But if an assumption about reality is at least plausible, then it need not be abandoned in order to be compatible with scientific knowledge.

And now we disagree again. The fact that an assumption is plausible or compatible with the scientifically reached conclusions about reality tells us nothing about whether it’s true.
The time to believe anything is when there is evidence for it. We have evidence that reality is real. We have no evidence that within this reality there is a god or gods. If you accept any one thing because it’s plausible and compatible then you are forced to accept every plausible and compatible nutjob claim in existence, at least if you want to be rationally consistent. The only other option is appealing to a special pleading fallacy.

6173044
If all of your evidence for believing something was shown to be unsound then the rational thing to do is abandon the belief. That’s what it means to care about whether your beliefs are true. It’s still smart to do more research, but you should be researching both sides not just looking for things to support your point of view.

As I pointed out earlier, each one of my personal experiences in isolation is easily falsifiable

Then that means the total of your personal experience’s is not evidence for your conclusion, period. 0+0+0+0+0+0 does not equal 1.

but so are each of the photon pairs from decaying Higgs Bosons and other discoveries made by analyzing patterns among apparent coincidences.

I am a layman in the area of physics, but I understand enough to know you are wrong. To establish something as real each point of data used to recognize a pattern must stand on its own. Suppose I’m tracking the appearance of a certain species of bird in a region. If one of my rangers gives me an unconfirmed sighting, he saw what might have been that bird or it could have been another, then we can mark it down. It’s circumstantial, but it’s worth noting. Perhaps I get several more ‘maybe’ hits in that area. Is it the target bird, a family of them, or are the Park rangers priming each other to mistake another species as the target bird? We can’t say for sure. On the other hand, if a ranger at the other end of the park gets a picture and some feathers, and another finds a nest and takes an egg, and another finds an intact body of one of these birds, then we have three comfirmed sightings. In the first case one sighting alone was not evidence and even adding them together we still have insufficient evidence to believe that the birds are there. In the second case each data point stands on its own. That’s evidence and we know the bird is there.

You only have the first kind of evidence and the bird species is Phoenix, a bird that has never been proven to exist. It doesn’t matter how many times a Phoenix (or Bigfoot or fairies or aliens or platypuses) gets sighted because until we have actual evidence we are not justified in believing they exist. When a farmer caught a platypus in a lobster trap and took it to the media, that one data point was the proof needed to demonstrate that this species (that had been sighted by natives and farmers for years) actually existed. For aliens, Bigfoot, fairies, and your god, we are still waiting for that one piece of data to prove that all the witnesses aren’t victims of confirmation bias or delusions.

You said earlier that if all your reasons to believe are disproven or proven to be fallacious then you would look for more reasons.
This reveals that you have a bias towards believing in god. Do you see that?
Do you understand why that’s a problem?

I used the 0+0+0 thing to demonstrate that if none of your evidence is reliable then it doesn’t matter how much you have, it still adds up to 0. Pick one piece of evidence for your god and share it (or share it again) in your next response. Make it one that you think is especially convincing. I predict that I can go through it and demonstrate to you that’s it in no way justifies a belief in a god. It is a zero. If you admit that and look at the data honestly then that’s one point removed from the board. Now on its own that’s ok because you still have X more pieces of evidence, but if they all fall apart under close scrutiny then eventually you are left with no rational reason to maintain your belief.

6172444

How do you know that?

I have faith.

If you really do care about truth then why do you think it’s a good idea to take anything on faith?

Because that's what that truth requires. Without God there are only questions. With God, there are answers. There is meaning.

What is your definition of truth here?

Just what's right. As in I'd be lying

6172475

You trying to claim truth in the specific Christian things you preach makes you no more relevant than someone trying to preach that Santa exists because there are books and movies about him.

The Creator of the universe has a bit more evidence going for Him than santa does

6172444
6172475
Let me ask you guys this. You believe aliens are out there somewhere?

6173776

I have faith.
...
Because that's what that truth requires. Without God there are only questions. With God, there are answers.

Please demonstrate this assertion.
I think it’s pretty evident that there are both questions and answers with or without believing in a god claim. Sometimes the honest answer to a question is ‘I don’t know’. If that makes you uncomfortable and you’d rather pretend you have an answer and call it ‘god’ then you are free to do that. By doing so you are demonstrating that you care more about having comforting answered then you do about your answers actually being true. That’s how I define faith, so st least we seem to be on the same page here.

There is meaning.

This is an argument from consequences fallacy. Whether or not life has meaning is completly independent to the question ‘does god/an afterlife exist?’ I disagree with your implication that without god there is no meaning, but that’s a whole other conversation we can have on another thread later if you want.
There are three ways that people typically defend religion.
1. They argue that it is correct.
2. They argue that believing it is either necessary or beneficial to society and individuals.
3. They argue that atheism is somehow also a religion that is equally unjustified as their own beliefs and everyone is equal in having religious beliefs.

I’m happy to discuss any of those but the one thing that should be crystal clear to anyone reading this is that the first type of argument is the only one that has anything to do with the question of whether or not religious claims are true.

If I didn't preach things that conform to Christianity I wouldn't be preaching the truth.

How do you define truth?

Just what's right. As in I'd be lying

You preach Christianity because it’s the truth and the truth is what’s right.
Do you agree with my definition that truth is that which comports with reality? Is that what you mean by ‘right’?
Again I hope you don’t mind all the questions. I just Really don’t want us to be talking around each other because we mean different hints by the same word.

You believe aliens are out there somewhere?

I believe that it possible that there is life somewhere in the universe other than here on earth. I do not have a positive belief that aliens exist though because they have not yet been proven. At the same time, I do not hold a belief that there are definitely no such thing as aliens because to hold that belief one would have to have knowledge of the entire cosmos.
It’s almost the same position I have on god, except I think the possibility of aliens existing is more likely than many descriptions of god I’ve heard so far. I also believe that more people make more unjustified claims of knowledge about gods and afterlife’s then they do about aliens, but that’s not evidence for or against the existance of aliens, just an observation.

6173806
6173776

If I may interject on the subject of aliens . . . I feel that we'd be remiss if we didn't acknowledge probability. To believe something exists because there's a high probability of it existing isn't the same thing as knowing, but nor is it the same thing as believing without any valid reason to believe.

If someone were to tell me that there are fairies in my garden, I wouldn't and shouldn't believe them. It's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. For starters, I'd have to be convinced that they even exist, and we're talking about magical creatures that have been in our myths for centuries, but we've never been actually been able to prove that they are real. Everything we know about them, and the world, points to them not existing at all, and even though I can't be certain, and can't claim to know, the rational course of action would be to live my life assuming that they don't. Now in a world where fairies are well-known to be a real thing and are regularly observable . . . I still wouldn't have a reason to believe that they were in my garden just because someone said so, but the probability would be MUCH higher than under real-world conditions.

I do believe that aliens exist, but only because it would be very difficult for some form of life to not exist somewhere out there in universe other than here. Billions upon billions of star-systems are within the known universe. One might argue that not all of those systems are going to have planets that are capable of fostering life, or may argue that our own world is an example of a delicate balance and just a hair away from desolation, but people are looking at the result of life on Earth in reverse . . . seeing Earth as being perfect for life, rather than life having adapted to Earth. Furthermore, life could, indeed, be relatively rare, but 'relatively rare' in terms of anything pertaining to the sea of countless galaxies within our universe doesn't lend itself to true scarcity.

In short, asking me whether or not I believe in aliens is less like asking me if I believe their are fairies in my garden, and a little more like asking me if there's bugs in any garden. I do not know if there are bugs in anyone's garden, anywhere, but I find it to be ridiculously unlikely that there wouldn't be bugs in any garden the world over for even a second, and I feel I can safely assume that there probably are.

Now, if we want to talk about UFOs and aliens visiting us on a frequent basis . . . no, I do not believe that we are regularly visited by aliens. Any civilization advanced enough to waltz around the galaxy as if it were a casual road-trip is going to massively dwarf our own to the point that we appear more like ants. There's not much reason to assume that beings capable of something like this would be interested in us at all.

The idea that aliens exist sounds absurd but really isn't once you factor in things like the sheer opportunity for it across uncountable planets, the availability of the stuff that goes into self-replicating molecules, and how quickly it happened with our own planet. The idea that aliens are making secretive back-room deals with primitive, planet-bound governments is ridiculous because there's simply no motive or logical reason for beings capable of actually getting here to want to interact with us at all. This being such a common conspiracy theory really just demonstrates how full of ourselves we are.

6173806
6173834

I do not believe I can build a solid argument without statistical probably. A more down to Earth example would be a die roll. Let's say it lands on 2. I believe it to be an unfair die, but that roll doesn't prove anything. Let's say I roll it 1000 times and never get a 1 but 6 shows up half the time. It is certainly likely the die is weighted given that data set, but there is still that possibility of it being a fluke, all be it a vanishingly small one. There is something called the sigma scale used to measure how likely they are not wrong. I don't know how to use it by heart, but I could probably crunch the numbers and see how many die rolls a scientist using that scale would want before declaring the die unfair.

6173776
Care to present said evidence? No, the Bible is not evidence. It was written by people, for people, and has been influenced and changed by people. Give me something concrete.

Also you ignored that what you said is something anyone in any religion could say. You're still not any more relevant than the other 4,199 religions on the planet.

Also it'd be kinda silly to think there aren't aliens somewhere within this unfathomably massive universe, but until we can actually talk to some, we don't have any way of knowing for sure.

6173848

I do not believe I can build a solid argument without statistical probably. A more down to Earth example would be a die roll.

I absolutely agree! Statistics is how we calculate where the preponderance of evidence points to. Dice examples (and coin flips) are excellent analogies to demonstrate this.

Let's say I roll it 1000 times and never get a 1 but 6 shows up half the time. It is certainly likely the die is weighted given that data set, but there is still that possibility of it being a fluke, all be it a vanishingly small one.

Exactly! And if the dice is loaded then we can examine it, cut it open and weigh the different parts of it.
Now if we do that and the dice is a normal dice then we have a strange set of data without an explanation. If I say ‘oh I know, Harry Potter cast a spell on it, it’s magic, that’s why we have no 1s’ then I have a burden of proof to demonstrate that this is the case. I also have to demonstrate that magic is real before it can be appealed to as a cause. This is made even more precarious when we are unable to analyze the dice and see if it’s weighted or not, and the data wasn’t collected carefully but simply gathered in a Humans memory (remember I asked if you knew about confirmation bias?

If you give me a testimony that is really strange and I can think of no possible reason how it could have happened naturally (just like the 1000 rolls with no 1s) then the only honest answer is: I don’t know what is causing this. To then simply assert without evidence that your god is the cause is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

You don’t get to say ‘I don’t know, therefore god’. You have to demonstrate god first, just like the bird example I gave earier. Statistics are a great tool but they are only as strong as their single strongest data point. If you don’t have a single data point that proves what you are looking for then all the circumstantial evidence and all the analogies and all the anecdotal testimonies in the world are ultimately meaningless.

6173834
I completly agree.

I think a really important point is that any person that makes the claim has the burden of proof. Saying ‘I believe life is out there somewhere in the universe, but I’m not claiming this as factual’ has a very small burden that SolidSnake has more than met in this post. Saying ‘I believe aliens live among us MIB style’ has a far higher burden of proof. They are significantly different claims.

6173776

The claim that ‘I believe that we have an invisible, immaterial, undetectable, and contradictory soul that goes to another dimension when we die, and this place is run by the perfect and infinite creator of the universe, a being that can’t be tested and has never been proven but I know all about him...’ this type of belief has a massive burden of proof.

Faith (belief with action as you defined it Afterburn) doesn’t cut it, that’s just repeating that you believe what you believe. We are asking why you believe it.

Is there anything true or false that I couldn’t believe on faith?

6173998
I had a feeling you would want to cut the die open. I kind of had it in my mind that was out of bounds; the analogy only works when looking at the results. Here is a short article explaining the how scientists measure how unlikely they are to have made an an erroneous discovery. It does go for a more balanced version of the die roll analogy, but you don't have access to the physical dice there. (One of them may be all 5's.)

http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=103

6174012

I think I understand your point of view a little better now. I have differing views on death than as described, but that's a discussion for another topic.

There is a difference between faith and belief. Suppose you have night vision on in a dark room. I am standing and you say there is a chair behind me. I can believe you but not sit. I would lack faith in the chair and/or you. I could doubt you but sit anyway; I'd have a rather odd combination of faith without belief. Otherwise I could doubt and stand or believe and sit. (Feeling for the chairs breaks the analogy.) Are belief and faith as I put them the same as the two types of faith you've defined? (Iff (If and only if) so, are you asking why someone might believe?

P.S. I do have a Bible text to support the distinction if you want.

6173748

We agree that something proven within the evidence of our reality to be false needs to be disregarded.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we necessarily agree on what things have or haven't been proven true or false.

The fact that an assumption is plausible or compatible with the scientifically reached conclusions about reality tells us nothing about whether it’s true.

I never said it did.

We have no evidence that within this reality there is a god or gods.

I disagree, given that I firmly believe that some of the philosophical arguments for God's existence are much stronger than most atheists are willing to admit. Since I'm not as familiar with those arguments as I'd need to be to both present and defend them, I'll refrain from discussing them for the time being. In regards to this discussion, though, I'd point out that we have no proof that there isn't a God. Even so, unless I just misunderstand, some people seem to treat a belief that God doesn't exist as a sort of safe neutral or default, even though the possibility exists that they may be wrong.

If you accept any one thing because it’s plausible and compatible then you are forced to accept every plausible and compatible nutjob claim in existence, at least if you want to be rationally consistent.

I never said that something being compatible with scientific knowledge makes it true, only plausible. Therefore, rational consistency doesn't require me to believe anything apart from proven reality. I first accepted Christianity as truth because it is what I was taught, but I have come to the personal conclusion that it is correct. And that is more or less what I mean when I say that I consider faith a starting point. I don't think that believing something solely because your parents or some other human authority figure told you to is intellectually responsible, but that is where we start with everything we believe about reality until we learn to form our own conclusions based on observation and rationalization.

6174155

I had a feeling you would want to cut the die open. I kind of had it in my mind that was out of bounds; the analogy only works when looking at the results.

I can run with that analogy, my issue is that even though we don’t have access to the dice we still have accurate data. We know how many times I rolled the dice and how many came up as 5. In your case it’s like you are looking at the dice in near pitch blackness, you can sort of see the dice but you can’t for sure tell how many times it was rolled and how many times it was actually 5 and not 4 just looking like 5.

Here is a short article explaining the how scientists measure how unlikely they are to have made an an erroneous discovery. It does go for a more balanced version of the die roll analogy, but you don't have access to the physical dice there. (One of them may be all 5's.)
http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=103

I read the article. I am not familiar enough with the physics to comment there, but I accept the idea that statistics are used to calculate the likelihood of certain hypothesis’s. Has someone calculated the likelihood that god exists? I know there have been prayer studies and they either produce no noticeable effect or a negative effect in one case.

The problem is that you’re analogy fails to address the problem of supernatural causation. Do you think that it’s possible for science to prove god?

There is a difference between faith and belief.

Sort of. There is a difference between faith as belief and faith as a reason for belief.

Suppose you have night vision on in a dark room. I am standing and you say there is a chair behind me. I can believe you but not sit. I would lack faith in the chair and/or you. I could doubt you but sit anyway; I'd have a rather odd combination of faith without belief. Otherwise I could doubt and stand or believe and sit.

I don’t use the word faith in place of belief, I only say belief or trust to avoid confusion. If I’m in a dark room and you tell me there is a chair behind me and I believe you then I have accepted the belief based on evidence. The evidence is that you told me. If I don’t believe there’s a chair (I saw the room recently with the lights on and it was empty) but I trust you then I could sit down and hope for the best. I am trusting you. Maybe I am giving you the benefit of the doubt or maybe I have known you for years and my trust is based on that experience. Whether my reasons are good or bad to trust you it’s not faith because it’s based on those reasons.

It comes down to usage. If you claim X and I say ‘why do you believe that?’ You can either say ‘because of this reason’ or you can say ‘I have faith’. If you are giving faith as the reason you believe something then you are being circular and have failed to give an actual reason for belief.

Are belief and faith as I put them the same as the two types of faith you've defined? (Iff (If and only if) so, are you asking why someone might believe?

I think you still haven’t quite gotten what I mean, but you are correct that I’m asking why someone believes.

Example: I believe X because of Y = I have faith in X because of Y.
I believe in X because of faith = I believe in X because I believe in X.

The first line gives a reason that we can look at and discuss. If Y is wrong or false or fallacious or not proven then you are not justified to believe in X, but at lease we can have the conversation.
In the second line you are merely repeating what you believe and there’s is no conversation to be had because you are being circular.

P.S. I do have a Bible text to support the distinction if you want.

I don’t really care what the bible says. It’s an interesting piece of ancient literature, but so is the Iliad and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Is there any good reason you have to pay special attention to the bible?

6174190

Yes, but that doesn't mean we necessarily agree on what things have or haven't been proven true or false.

Agreed. The difference is that when something isn’t proven false but it’s not proven true, I withhold belief while you accept belief. (If I’m wrong here please correct me, this is just the impression I am getting not me trying to put words in your mouth).

I never said it did.

Great! We agree then

I disagree, given that I firmly believe that some of the philosophical arguments for God's existence are much stronger than most atheists are willing to admit. Since I'm not as familiar with those arguments as I'd need to be to both present and defend them, I'll refrain from discussing them for the time being.

I disagree for a couple of reasons.
1) In my experience all of the philosophical arguments for god are guilty of one or more logical fallacies.
2) Even if you had an argument that was sound, that doesn’t tell us if it’s true. There has to be some way to test it, it has to be falsifiable. If not, then it is irrational to accept it as true. Argument without evidence is not enough to believe anything, it’s back to the idea of something being ‘compatible and not disproven’.
I’m open to being corrected here, perhaps we can start a new thread discussing the philosophical arguments for god. If you don’t want to though because you are not confident in your ability to explain them over typing imstead of in person that’s totally cool too, I’m not going to try and declare that as a win or anything.

In regards to this discussion, though, I'd point out that we have no proof that there isn't a God.

This is a critical error in your reasoning. The person asserting that there is a god has the burden of proof, not the person doubting the assertion. Pointing out that there is no proof against your idea is a logical fallacy called shifting the burden of proof.

Even so, unless I just misunderstand, some people seem to treat a belief that God doesn't exist as a sort of safe neutral or default,

Yes, you are misunderstanding here. The claim is: there is a god. The person making the claim has a burden of proof. In lieu of proof I do not accept the claim, so I do not believe there is a god. This does not mean that I believe there is no god, it simply means that I lack the belief there is a god. Withholding belief until evidence is presented is the default position, not believing the opposite is true. I can give you examples to make this point clearer if you want.

even though the possibility exists that they may be wrong.

Yes, I could be wrong about anything. I could be a brain in a vat and this whole world is a delusion, or I could be plugged into the matrix like Neo was. Maybe the Greeks or the Hindus or the Scientologists are right. I’m guessing that the fact that you could be wrong about Islam being untrue hasn’t caused you to loose any sleep recently? The fact that I could be wrong is not evidence, it’s a universal constant.

I never said that something being compatible with scientific knowledge makes it true, only plausible

I agree, but I care about what’s actually true. There is basically an infinite number of things that are plausible but almost certainly not true, so I don’t want to waste my life thinking about them.

Therefore, rational consistency doesn't require me to believe anything apart from proven reality.

I don’t know about ‘therefore’ but yes I agree that if you want to be rational then you can only accept things about reality based on the evidence found within reality.

I first accepted Christianity as truth because it is what I was taught

Indoctrinated?

but I have come to the personal conclusion that it is correct.

Awesome! What convinced you? I suspect that we may have different standards of evidence, but thats something we can work through as we go.

And that is more or less what I mean when I say that I consider faith a starting point.

It sounds like you are saying that your personal journey to your current conclusion started with faith (belief without evidence) but that faith is not part of your justification for beliefs now?

I don't think that believing something solely because your parents or some other human authority figure told you to is intellectually responsible, but that is where we start with everything we believe about reality until we learn to form our own conclusions based on observation and rationalization

This is awesome, this is why I enjoy these conversations. Correct me if I’m wrong, it sounds like you are talking about how all people start as children and have blind faith in their parents out of necessity until they are old enough to learn about critical thinking and proper reason. This whole time I was talking about a fully grown person considering an idea and beginning with a leap of faith.
I now understand you and completly agree. When I was a child I had faith, many things (everything?) I learned as a child were faith based and I built on these foundations as I grew older. In the sense of looking at a person growing from infancy to adulthood, we all start with faith.

When I say that faith is an unreliable path to truth, I’m talking about considering our beliefs as fully cognizant adults. Any belief I hold, if I question it deeply enough, comes back to evidence. If a belief is pointed out to me that is faith based then I will examine it and, if it is rationally justified, I will keep it. If it is not rationally justified then I will discard it. During the project of assessing the truth of claims, faith is not a reliable tool to use at the beginning, middle, or end. Does my point of view make sense now? Do you agree or disagree?

6174698

I would like to start by thanking you for challenging me these past few days. I'll agree on the hard to see dice comparison.

Has someone calculated the likelihood that god exists? 

I found a page that provided a number for part of the answer.

Lennox goes on to cite Penrose’s answer:

“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”

That probability was for our universe or one close enough for life as we know it to exist in to have been randomly selected.

http://godevidence.com/2010/12/ok-i-want-numbers-what-is-the-probability-the-universe-is-the-result-of-chance/

They also link a rather long article explaining how probably is not a viable appeal. About 2-3% of the scroll bar is the actual paper.

http://godevidence.com/2012/09/why-god-why-not-just-plain-luck/

The Illiad and Gilgamesh were subject to oral tradition for a while before they were recorded on paper. Those reciting the stories were even taught to improvise the second half of each line. This led to a variety of variations of the stories. The books in the Bible have been preserved as time went on, as demonstrated by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

6174909

I would like to start by thanking you for challenging me these past few days.

Your welcome! Thank you as well for the conversation!

I found a page that provided a number for part of the answer.

[snark]Cool, where is this guy’s nobel prize?[/snark]

In all seriousness, it’s impossible to calculate the likelihood that our universe was created or that there is a god unless you actually find evidence of this universe creating god. Allow me to explain.

All probability calculations are made by looking at what’s already happened and known quantities. You have to take the data and contrast the number of times something happened to the number of times it could have happened. The past data is then used to predict the future.
If I score a basket ball 6 times out of 10 shots then I scored 60%. If I score 6/100 then my score is only 6%. From these numbers, someone could predict how likely I am to score a given shot.
If I tell you I scored 6 times then can you tell me my score percentage? No, because you are missing data.
Now if I flip a regular coin and get heads once, can you calculate how likely I am to get heads again? Yes, it is a 50/50 chance.
“Wait, why are they different” the voice in my head asks.

The reason for this is that in basket ball there is unequal/unknown probability between the two possibilities (hit and miss) but with the coin toss there is equal probability between the two possibilities (heads and tails).
Now in the second example, instead of flipping a coin suppose we pulled a card out of a shuffled deck. The odds of getting any one card is 1/52. You didnt have to draw a card 52 times and track the results because you knew the total possibility and, like the coin toss, the deck has an equal probability to reveal any given card.
Now I draw a card from my imaginary deck and I get an Ace of Spades, the best possible card in the game I'm playing.
Is that unlikely? Yes, it's less than 2%
Is that lucky? Yes, but only because it's the card I wanted.
Is that comfirmed answered prayer? No, because it was possible* and it was just as likely as any other card coming up.
*every example of answered prayer you gave was something that could have just happened. The only reason you consider it special is because you are arbitrarily assigning value to it. You haven’t demonstrated that someone cheated and picked that card out of the deck,

I'm bringing this back to proving god/creation with statistics now. Whenever a religious person argues that God is 'more likely' they either do not understand how likelihood is calculated or they are lying.
When Roger Penrose and the like calculate how unlikely it is for the universe to be the way it is, it's similar to how we calculated the odds of pulling a specific card is 1/52. It is very unlikely to get a certain card, but it's no more unlikely than getting any other one card. The thing is that when you draw, you are going to get some card. Our universe being the way it is may be very unlikely but it's got to be some way and the way it is is no more unlikely then any other way.
Is it unlikely? Extremly so.
Is it lucky? It is to us, but it's unlucky to other forms of life that can't exist in our universe.
Is it evidence of god? No, it’s just the way it is. When you produce a god for us to examine then we can talk.

This universe and the life on earth was either created by a higher intelligence, or it wasn't. This is like the basketball analogy because we do not know that these two possibilities are equally likely. That doesn't automatically mean that it's unequal, it just means that we can't assume it's equal and we can't use the coin flip/card model to calculate odds. That leaves the basket ball method by default.
We only have one Earth like planet in one universe to examine. There is no way to make a comparison because there's nothing to compare it too. If we could examine other universes and see that these 6 over here were created and these 4 over here came about naturally, then we would have some data to work with. We do not have that data. We don't know how a universe created by a god would be different from a universe that came about naturally.
So we don't have equal probability like the coin toss and the deck of cards, and we don't have multiple universes to examine so that we can compare the hits (Intelligently designed) to the misses (natural), so it is literally impossible to say anything about the likelihood of god existing or the universe being created. Based on the data the only thing you can say is that the probability of our universe being the way it is, is 1. It does nothing to indicate for or against a god.

The only rational thing to do is withhold belief and keep on investigating and grant belief when evidence is found.

The Illiad and Gilgamesh were subject to oral...

I don’t care. I brought them up because they are other ancient documents that are worthy of our historians attention. I don’t care if the bible was written down 2 days or several decades or several centuries after the events in question. I care if it’s true or not.
Let me state the key questions in an (I believe) unbiased manner without appealing to a world view. Please point out the flaws in my reasoning. I look forward to your answered and will give my anseweres to these questions after you do.
1. A bunch of people saw something they can't explain (the resurrection or other miracles). What's more likely: they were mistaken in what they think they saw/it has a natural explanation they don't yet possess OR there really was a violation of the laws of physics?
2. The recording of these events are dated decades after the event in question. What's more likely: testimonies recorded years later are inaccurate and embellished (intentionally or unintentionally) and do not reliably communicate what people actually saw at the time OR twenty or more years later witnesses are able to give a reasonably accurate account of what they saw?
3. The record of what these people saw comes from the bible. Scribe errors, translations, additions and subtraction, political and financial motivations, missing original manuscripts, anonymous authorship, and the fact that a council voted on which books would be 'canonized' in the first place all contribute against the idea of a perfectly reliable account of events. What's more likely: the bible is accurate compared to its original recording OR the biblical narrative has undergone changes, revisions, mistranslations, etc over the many centuries it's been around?
4. Suppose the the reliability of the biblical chain of scribes was absolutely beyond question. We knew with absolute accuracy the name and timeline of every translator or scribe dating back to the original authors, whom we can confirm wrote their books within months of the events in question. What's more likely: the resurrection and other miracles happened as reported OR the the authors got it wrong for some reason?
5. Suppose miracles and the resurrection were confirmed to exist independent of the bible and personal testimony, meaning within observable and testable reality. What's more likely: we can justifiably claim that we know the cause is supernatural even though we have no way to investigate beyond the natural OR because we can only investigate the natural we can make no justifiable claims for or against supernatural causation?

6175227

The second link established things like "causal mechanisms" and "underlying structure, or order." In order for there to be a card draw, one must first have a deck of cards and a way of choosing a card. (Their analogy was a lottery). Without a deck or a way to draw a card, nothing is won.

The paper goes on to touch on entropy and order from apparent (but not true) chaos. They work their way to the laws of physics as not having the information density to produce a single genome. Suffice it to say my summery does not do it justice.

We only have one Earth like planet in one universe to examine.

While we don't have direct access to other universes, we can see how things would work by pluging different numbers in for different universal constants. Another point made from the second link is that in most other universes observed using this method don't even support the atomic structure.

Fun fact: another translation for miracle is "something wonderful" without respect to the cause supernatural or otherwise. For the remainder of this discussion, though, I will assume divine involvement.

1. A bunch of people saw something they can't explain (the resurrection or other miracles). What's more likely: they were mistaken in what they think they saw/it has a natural explanation they don't yet possess OR there really was a violation of the laws of physics?

I would not rule out divine intervention by way of natural processes. Many supposed miracle stories (Bible stories and mission stories) have fully natural explanations. Dropping the examples due to past disinterest, I would propose that God is not above using ordinary vectors when a more direct approach would do.

2. The recording of these events are dated decades after the event in question. What's more likely: testimonies recorded years later are inaccurate and embellished (intentionally or unintentionally) and do not reliably communicate what people actually saw at the time OR twenty or more years later witnesses are able to give a reasonably accurate account of what they saw?

There are people with an increadibale gift for memorization. Such people do not stand out so well in a literate culture, but modern examples exist in tribal settings. I forget the exact term for them in Rome, but they have an uncanny ability to recite events/quotes verbatim as good as any tape recorder.

3. The record of what these people saw comes from the bible. Scribe errors, translations, additions and subtraction, political and financial motivations, missing original manuscripts, anonymous authorship, and the fact that a council voted on which books would be 'canonized' in the first place all contribute against the idea of a perfectly reliable account of events. What's more likely: the bible is accurate compared to its original recording OR the biblical narrative has undergone changes, revisions, mistranslations, etc over the many centuries it's been around?

I don't have as much to say directly to this one. Most anything I would would be based on the assertion that God has protected the narrative. All we can do to avoid any of those possible accidental/intentional biases is to study all relevant manuscripts and make an educated guess as to the original. As one of my high school teachers put it, we may get to Heaven and find that God had a few other books that would have explained some things better, but weren't necessary.

Side note: the four Ghosples were written to four different audiences and it is often debated as to which ones copied out of others or if they copied out of earlier, lost refferences.

4. Suppose the the reliability of the biblical chain of scribes was absolutely beyond question. We knew with absolute accuracy the name and timeline of every translator or scribe dating back to the original authors, whom we can confirm wrote their books within months of the events in question. What's more likely: the resurrection and other miracles happened as reported OR the the authors got it wrong for some reason?

We can examine each of most likely causes and give it a weight. (I have no proposal as to the actual assigning of these weights at this time). FireHeart 1985 did a long winded example in another thread. Its full inclusion might double the length of this post. I'll do a super brief version here.
A. The diciples were lying. -why would they die for a lie?
B. The diciples were mad. -they are on record doing things in a sane way.
C. Someone moved the body. -Roman soldiers would not care about a local movement enough to risk a death penalty.
D. Jesus was only fainted. - no. Just no. He would be in no condition to roll the stone away, tend off the guards, get a chance of clothes, heal His wounds, then be mistaken as a gardner.

5. Suppose miracles and the resurrection were confirmed to exist independent of the bible and personal testimony, meaning within observable and testable reality. What's more likely: we can justifiably claim that we know the cause is supernatural even though we have no way to investigate beyond the natural OR because we can only investigate the natural we can make no justifiable claims for or against supernatural causation?

I found a link to a page with quotes from several medical doctors examine a messenger for God, Ellen White, while she was in vision. They report their methods, usually a flame or mirror near the face for eye flinch (fire only) or breath detection, and findings, she didn't breathe while in this state; some findings included her confirmed pulse or even moving around.

http://www.truthorfables.net/visions-no-breath-1.htm

This gives a case study. But, without trusting her in what she says she saw, I suppose one could only conclude that she was somehow sustained from oxygen deprivation.

6175349

The second link established things like "causal mechanisms" and "underlying structure, or order."

I’m not quite savvy enough to fully grasp what you mean here. How does this point to a god, let alone a Christian god?

In order for there to be a card draw, one must first have a deck of cards and a way of choosing a card.

Sure, in this case the deck of cards represent other values that the physical constants of the universe could have conceivably been and the chosen card is what our universal constants evidently are. It’s conjecture because for all we know there are infinite other universes, a supreme being that created our universe (which doesn’t answer anything just pushes our questions up a level) or the way the universe is is the only way it could have been. We don’t know, that’s my position and sciences position. You (and other theists) are the ones claiming that you do know, please demonstrate how you came to your conclusion (and remember that faith and logical fallacies do not meet my standard of evidence and shouldn’t meet yours).

The paper goes on to touch on entropy and order from apparent (but not true) chaos. They work their way to the laws of physics as not having the information density to produce a single genome. Suffice it to say my summery does not do it justice.

It’s all good, I’ll trust your summary. They conlude that based on their understanding of physics the universe is unable to generate what we observe (life on earth). The problem is that there evidently is life on earth. This means that to the question: “how did life arise in the universe” the answer is “we don’t know”. What’s next?
Option 1: keep investigating.
Option 2: rely on an argument from ignorance fallacy and declare ‘god did it’.

While we don't have direct access to other universes, we can see how things would work by pluging different numbers in for different universal constants.

No, we can make educated guesses how things would work with different constants. There is no way (at the moment) to actually test any of the guesses that are made about different universal constants. That’s partially why the whole fine tuning argument is complete garbage.

Another point made from the second link is that in most other universes observed using this method don't even support the atomic structure.

I’m assuming you meant conceived of, not observed.
This is true, but again what conclusion can we draw from it? How does ‘we are lucky to exist’ get us to ‘there’s is a god’?

6175349
I wanted to post the core questions seperatly for the sake of easy replying.

Fun fact: another translation for miracle is "something wonderful" without respect to the cause supernatural or otherwise. For the remainder of this discussion, though, I will assume divine involvement.

Yes, I’ve heard it used that way too. The problem is that people tend to refer to miracles as proof of god. The only way for them to count is if we have a method of saying this event is a miracle and this event isn't. ‘Something wonderful’ is too vague and subjective to be useful. I’m glad we agree.

I would not rule out divine intervention by way of natural processes.

Neither would I, the question is do we have any reason to think there was divine intervention? How do you prove divine intervention? How do you even detect it?

Many supposed miracle stories (Bible stories and mission stories) have fully natural explanations.

Then they are not evidence of god or the supernatural.

Dropping the examples due to past disinterest, I would propose that God is not above using ordinary vectors when a more direct approach would do.

You are welcome to propose this, but I have questions. How did you determine this proposal, how does god interact with reality, how to we investigate your proposal, and how do we falsify it?

There are people with an increadibale gift for memorization.

Do you have any reason to believe that the biblical authors had this gift?

Such people do not stand out so well in a literate culture, but modern examples exist in tribal settings. I forget the exact term for them in Rome, but they have an uncanny ability to recite events/quotes verbatim as good as any tape recorder.

That’s cool, but what’s more likely? Do the decades of time help the accuracy, hurt the accuracy, or are they neutral?

I don't have as much to say directly to this one. Most anything I would would be based on the assertion that God has protected the narrative

I’m glad you recognize this as an assertion, as you probably realize by now it’s also circular.

A. The diciples were lying. -why would they die for a lie?
B. The diciples were mad. -they are on record doing things in a sane way.
C. Someone moved the body. -Roman soldiers would not care about a local movement enough to risk a death penalty.
D. Jesus was only fainted. - no. Just no. He would be in no condition to roll the stone away, tend off the guards, get a chance of clothes, heal His wounds, then be mistaken as a gardner.

E. The disciples were not mad, they were simply mistaken. The were victims of mob mentality, group hallucination, or tricked by an optical illusion. (The fact that they died would only be compelling if nobody else in history has died for beliefs outside of Christendom)
F. The original manuscripts written down were, from the start, an exaggeration of events or completly fabricated.
G. It was written as a fable from the start and only later generations started taking it serriously.
H. Some other explanation we haven’t come up with.
As much as I love Sherlock Holmes, his motto: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth...” is absolutely false. If you eliminate a bunch of possibilities then that’s all you’ve done, eliminated them. When it comes time to assert that a certain explanation is correct you need positive evidence. That’s why criminal law works under the principle ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Edit: I find your god innocent of existing. It’s your job* to prove him guilty.

I found a link to a page with quotes from several medical doctors examine a messenger for God, Ellen White, while she was in vision. They report their methods, usually a flame or mirror near the face for eye flinch (fire only) or breath detection, and findings, she didn't breathe while in this state; some findings included her confirmed pulse or even moving around.
http://www.truthorfables.net/visions-no-breath-1.htm
This gives a case study. But, without trusting her in what she says she saw, I suppose one could only conclude that she was somehow sustained from oxygen deprivation.

The controversy around Ellen White is numerous and extensive.
Yogi’s and other mystics and meditation masters have accomplished amazing things with their metabolic processes by changing their brain state. Personally I don’t think an oxygen deprived brain is somehow more trustworthy then a properly functioning one, maybe it’s just me though.
If Ellen White is having a vision from god and Johnny is meditating and they both stop breathing for a bit, how do we tell the difference?

The point of this question is this: if we could examine the events of the bible (reserection, healing, walking on water, food materializing out of thin air, alchemy, etc...) that would only be evidence of some special abilities/skills. How do these things prove god?

*I say it’s your job for two reasons. 1) 1 Peter 3:15 2) because as the person claiming to have good reason to believe you have the burden of proof.

6174813

It sounds like you are saying that your personal journey to your current conclusion started with faith (belief without evidence) but that faith is not part of your justification for beliefs now?

No, faith is still a vital part of my beliefs. Even if I am personally convinced based on rationalization and personal experience that my beliefs are correct, that doesn't rule out faith entirely. Even though I am convinced that the reality of change necessitates an "Unmoved Mover" (as Aristotle argued), and though I believe it can be argued that this Unmoved Mover possess many of the qualities that religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam each ascribes to whom it calls "God;" it is still largely by faith (albeit with the support of rationalization and personal experience) that I accept the God of Christianity as the Unmoved Mover.

Personally, I am not convinced that there is anyone who can justify everything he or she believes with evidence or proof. On a daily basis, we take people at their word even when the possibility exists that they could be misleading us, whether intentionally or not. If we cannot totally confirm that what we are being told is true, then there is at least some measure of faith being exercised when we believe them. As the Russian proverb goes, "Доверяй, но проверяй" ("Trust, but verify").

6177104
This discussion has led me to expand my understanding of my beliefs. I thank you for it. However, working from my phone has gotten a bit confusing when it comes to long posts and quotes. I need to take a break from it. Some of my responses have taken two hours each to compose (eye strain and all). I'm at the point where I have given a lot of what I remember. I have more stories, but I don't think you would classify them as anything new.

The only way to know beyond room for a doubt, would be to die. If He exists, you will have your answer. If He doesn't, then, nothing. At least for me, I will have lived a happier and healthier life with more hope than if I hadn't.

All each of us can really do is research and choose which experts we trust. Some say, "God isn't needed," (Hawking) while others see an impossibility when removing a higher power from the picture.

In closing, if there is a sure fire way to observe the existence of God without first trying Him firsthand or giving up your life, then I do not remember it at this time. If I do, maybe I can necro the thread. Thanks again for the discussion.

Shadow_8472.

P.S. I wonder that the OP would say after reading the whole text of our back and forth.

6177363

No, faith is still a vital part of my beliefs. Even if I am personally convinced based on rationalization and personal experience that my beliefs are correct, that doesn't rule out faith entirely. Even though I am convinced that the reality of change necessitates an "Unmoved Mover" (as Aristotle argued), and though I believe it can be argued that this Unmoved Mover possess many of the qualities that religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam each ascribes to whom it calls "God;" it is still largely by faith (albeit with the support of rationalization and personal experience) that I accept the God of Christianity as the Unmoved Mover.

Can you define faith as you are using it here please? I’m going to reply as though you are using it the way I have defined it like a dozen times so far, but if you are using it differently then that might change my whole understanding of your post.

Personally, I am not convinced that there is anyone who can justify everything he or she believes with evidence or proof.

Then you are wrong. That’s exactly what it means to be a skeptic. You proportion your degree of belief to the evidence. Are there some beliefs I hold right now that I have no justification for? Probably, but the second I realize what they are I will evaluate them and I will keep or abandon them based on evidence.
Ask me why I believe anything and I’ll either tell you reasons or I’ll say ‘I don’t know, let me think about that’. I will never say I believe because I believe, that’s a useless tautology. We may disagree on the strictness of my standard of evidence or we may have access to different information, but we can have the conversation and I am ready to be convinced of anything including your gods existance based on evidence.

On a daily basis, we take people at their word even when the possibility exists that they could be misleading us, whether intentionally or not.

Yes we do take people at their word sometimes, but different claims require different degrees of evidence. If you say you have a pet dog then I’ll probably take your word for it because I know dogs exist and are sometimes kept as pets and if your lying it doesn’t make a big difference in my life. Your word is sufficient evidence for the claim. If you tell me you have a pet Giraffe I would be slower to believe you. Maybe you live in Africa or come from an extremely wealthy and somewhat eccentric family, but it’s not likely in my experience that you have a pet giraffe. A video or two would probably satisfy my doubt. If you claim to have a pet dragon that is invisible and can pass through walls then I am not going to believe you for a second until you prove that A) Dragons exist B) they are invisible and can phase through matter and C) they are able to be domesticated as pets and D) you actually have one.

If we cannot totally confirm that what we are being told is true, then there is at least some measure of faith being exercised when we believe them.

No, you are wrong. As mentioned earlier, I don’t believe in absolute knowledge. I can’t know for sure that you have a pet dog just from your word. You could send me a picture, maybe it’s just photoshopped. I could meet the dog, maybe it’s just a friends that you are dog sitting. You could show me ownership papers, maybe they are forged, or maybe you have sold the dog since then and he’s no longer yours. Just because I don’t know for sure doesn’t mean I can’t follow a preponderance of evidence and have a rationally justified belief. Faith is not evidence, it’s the excuse people give when there is no evidence (or evidence to the contrary). At no point do I take you owning a dog on faith, I rely on evidence and the degree of my belief is 100% proportional to the evidence. Faith does not enter the picture at all.

As the Russian proverb goes, "Доверяй, но проверяй" ("Trust, but verify").

You are committing an equivocation fallacy. ‘Trust, but verify’ is a great skeptical approach. Faith is ‘trust, just trust’. Both involve the concept of faith/trust/belief, but then you (and other believers) turn around and try to use faith as a reason for belief.
If I base by belief even a little bit on faith instead of evidence, is there anything, true or false that I cant believe?

6177399
Thanks for the great conversation, I’m glad you enjoyed it too. I feel that your last post is a pretty good place to end things for now.

If He doesn't (exist), then, nothing. At least for me, I will have lived a happier and healthier life with more hope than if I hadn't.

If your reason for believing is that, then that’s ok. I support your right to believe. I care if my beliefs are actually true more than if they are comforting, and I think with the right understanding life has more hope and meaning without an afterlife to look forward to, but that’s a topic for another post 😜.

I do want to respond to one thing:

The only way to know beyond room for a doubt, would be to die.

I’m not looking to know for certain, I don’t believe that absolute certainty is possible. I’m just looking for any good reason to believe it’s more likely to be true. This is where our standards of evidence are different, probably the biggest source of our disagreement.

Please feel free to necro the thread or pm me if you have any more thoughts or questions!

-Majorshane

P.S. I wonder that the OP would say after reading the whole text of our back and forth.

OP?

6177436
6165861
Original Post

6177363
I posted this a few days ago but forgot to make it a reply to your post, my bad!

No, faith is still a vital part of my beliefs. Even if I am personally convinced based on rationalization and personal experience that my beliefs are correct, that doesn't rule out faith entirely. Even though I am convinced that the reality of change necessitates an "Unmoved Mover" (as Aristotle argued), and though I believe it can be argued that this Unmoved Mover possess many of the qualities that religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam each ascribes to whom it calls "God;" it is still largely by faith (albeit with the support of rationalization and personal experience) that I accept the God of Christianity as the Unmoved Mover.

Can you define faith as you are using it here please? I’m going to reply as though you are using it the way I have defined it like a dozen times so far, but if you are using it differently then that might change my whole understanding of your post.

Personally, I am not convinced that there is anyone who can justify everything he or she believes with evidence or proof.

Then you are wrong. That’s exactly what it means to be a skeptic. You proportion your degree of belief to the evidence. Are there some beliefs I hold right now that I have no justification for? Probably, but the second I realize what they are I will evaluate them and I will keep or abandon them based on evidence.
Ask me why I believe anything and I’ll either tell you reasons or I’ll say ‘I don’t know, let me think about that’. I will never say I believe because I believe, that’s a useless tautology. We may disagree on the strictness of my standard of evidence or we may have access to different information, but we can have the conversation and I am ready to be convinced of anything including your gods existance based on evidence.

On a daily basis, we take people at their word even when the possibility exists that they could be misleading us, whether intentionally or not.

Yes we do take people at their word sometimes, but different claims require different degrees of evidence. If you say you have a pet dog then I’ll probably take your word for it because I know dogs exist and are sometimes kept as pets and if your lying it doesn’t make a big difference in my life. Your word is sufficient evidence for the claim. If you tell me you have a pet Giraffe I would be slower to believe you. Maybe you live in Africa or come from an extremely wealthy and somewhat eccentric family, but it’s not likely in my experience that you have a pet giraffe. A video or two would probably satisfy my doubt. If you claim to have a pet dragon that is invisible and can pass through walls then I am not going to believe you for a second until you prove that A) Dragons exist B) they are invisible and can phase through matter and C) they are able to be domesticated as pets and D) you actually have one.

If we cannot totally confirm that what we are being told is true, then there is at least some measure of faith being exercised when we believe them.

No, you are wrong. As mentioned earlier, I don’t believe in absolute knowledge. I can’t know for sure that you have a pet dog just from your word. You could send me a picture, maybe it’s just photoshopped. I could meet the dog, maybe it’s just a friends that you are dog sitting. You could show me ownership papers, maybe they are forged, or maybe you have sold the dog since then and he’s no longer yours. Just because I don’t know for sure doesn’t mean I can’t follow a preponderance of evidence and have a rationally justified belief. Faith is not evidence, it’s the excuse people give when there is no evidence (or evidence to the contrary). At no point do I take you owning a dog on faith, I rely on evidence and the degree of my belief is 100% proportional to the evidence. Faith does not enter the picture at all.

As the Russian proverb goes, "Доверяй, но проверяй" ("Trust, but verify").

You are committing an equivocation fallacy. ‘Trust, but verify’ is a great skeptical approach. Faith is ‘trust, just trust’. Both involve the concept of faith/trust/belief, but then you (and other believers) turn around and try to use faith as a reason for belief.
If I base by belief even a little bit on faith instead of evidence, is there anything, true or false that I cant believe?

6175349

Your avatar offends me.

6175227

M'autist.