Faith is not "without evidence" argument

[BidenPresident]

I have never spoken of "blind faith." We can discuss it, but you will have to explain it to me.

Or...we can we discuss something that I have mentioned, like "blind guesses."

I corrected the typo.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I corrected the typo.

So you are saying that typing the word "faith" rather than "guesses" was a typo?

Wow. Hell of a typo, BP.

Shouldn't you have written, "I corrected that mistake?"

See...here we are discussing something.

 

[BidenPresident]

So you are saying that typing the word "faith" rather than "guesses" was a typo?

Wow. Hell of a typo, BP.

Shouldn't you have written, "I corrected that mistake?"

See...here we are discussing something.

blah blah blah

 

[Ross Dolan]

blah blah blah

Now see...here I am having a discussion with you...and what do you do.

You corrupt it.

Bad move.

You know that thing you called a typo...was not a typo at all. It was a mistake.

No big deal. Just call it a mistake...and get that behind us...so we can actually discuss something of substance.

You can choose the topic.

 

[Damocles]

There is also "testimony" that Mohammed flew to heaven on Pegasus and that Columbus encountered mermaids. Don't be so naive or try to compare it to modern courtroom proceedings.

Still waiting for evidence, btw. "He said, she said" isn't good enough.

Yes, there is. That I find it unconvincing doesn't change that it is testimony and therefore evidence.

Evidence isn't the same thing as "proof". It is simply evidence.

A detective can find eyewitnesses to a crime, each that tells a different version of events. Each are evidence, some may be false evidence, some may be poorly remembered, some may even be awesomely accurate, but all of them are evidence regardless of how they are viewed or what they are determined to be.

Pretending that eyewitness accounts are not evidence just shows that you do not understand what evidence is and have conflated the term with "proof" which you would find in convincing evidence. That you are convinced of something by evidence you find compelling doesn't change the nature of evidence.

It is like the word "quality" and it needs adjectives. Something can be of great quality, and something else can be poor quality. Something can be great evidence, something can be poor evidence. Each item is still evidence whether you find it compelling or not.

They choose to believe without seeing, believing eyewitness reports that you and I do not see as compelling. It doesn't change one iota that they used the evidence that we found unconvincing to reach a different conclusion. That their belief is not based on "nothing at all"... Your premise that Faith has no evidence is flawed from its inception.

 

[BidenPresident]

Yes, there is. That I find it unconvincing doesn't change that it is testimony and therefore evidence.

Evidence isn't the same thing as "proof". It is simply evidence.

A detective can find eyewitnesses to a crime, each that tells a different version of events. Each are evidence, some may be false evidence, some may be poorly remembered, some may even be awesomely accurate, but all of them are evidence regardless of how they are viewed or what they are determined to be.

Pretending that eyewitness accounts are not evidence just shows that you do not understand what evidence is and have conflated the term with "proof" which you would find in convincing evidence.

You are correct. Someone saying something counts as evidence.

 

[Damocles]

Occams razor is principle of not multiplying entities. Today we would say, the most economical explanation is the best one.

And it still doesn't change the realty. It is often the best one, but it is not always the most accurate explanation. What Occam posited cannot update reality to meet what was posited. An explanation may be economical and still be inaccurate, it can be complicated and still be accurate. What is usually true still would not always be true.

Today we would say, "The most economical explanation is usually the best one." it is not a statement of certainty but of percentages. What is the shortest path is only the most likely path taken, but it isn't the only path.

 

[BidenPresident]

And it still doesn't change the realty. It is often the beast one, but it is not always the most accurate explanation. What Occam posited cannot update reality to meet the reality. An explanation may be economical and still be inaccurate, it can be complicated and still be accurate. What is usually true still would not always be true.

Today we would say, "The most economical explanation is usually the best one." it is not a statement of certainty but of percentages. What is the shortest path is only the most likely path taken, but it isn't the only path.

Yes, the most concise explanation can still be false.

Occam was talking about ontology.

 

[Yakuda]

Let's apply Occam's Razor to your god! There are many philosophical debates around the existence of god(s). My solution to these debates is the simplest, which is that god(s) doesn't exist.

Why doesn't prayer work?

Because God doesn't exist.

Why can't I see God?

Because God doesn't exist.

Why does it seem like bad happens to good people? Why is life unfair?

Because God doesn't exist.

See? Occam's Razor.

So you're saying no prayer has ever been answered. Or do you mean not every prayer is answered the way we want it to be answered. That s not thee same at all.

God doesnt exist is a claim. Prove your claim.

I see oxygen so it doesnt exist.

And bad thing also happen to bad people. And good things also happen to bad people. And good things also happen to good people. Where did you get the idea life is supposed to be fair?

AGAIN you made a claim. Prove your claim.

 

[Concart]

God is entirely redundant in any creation discussion. There will always be a question that man cannot currently answer. Because if God did it all, then who created God? A creator is not needed, it just changes the unanswerable question and puts the burden back on those with 'faith'.

Science cannot examine the question of God. Period. Full stop.

 

[BidenPresident]

God is entirely redundant in any creation discussion. There will always be a question that man cannot currently answer. Because if God did it all, then who created God? A creator is not needed, it just changes the unanswerable question and puts the burden back on those with 'faith'.

Science cannot examine the question of God. Period. Full stop.

Agree with all. Well stated.

 

[AProudLefty]

Run from it all you like, 'Murica, but you are only fooling yourself when you declare you don't have an opinion.

I'm not seeking to prove anything to you, dumbass. How many times do I have to post you are free to think you are a meat robot of no more or less value alive than dead? The fact you ran from my questions about Might makes Right is all the evidence I need to know you are only fooling yourself with your opinions.

It is impossible to disprove one's belief in god.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It is impossible to disprove one's belief in god.

It's impossible, so far, to prove why the Big Bang happened and whether there is anything outside the Natural Universe.

'Murica is claiming there is nothing beyond Earth life and death including Space Aliens. Why? Because he's never seen them so they must not exist.

 

[AProudLefty]

So you're saying no prayer has ever been answered. Or do you mean not every prayer is answered the way we want it to be answered. That s not thee same at all.

God doesnt exist is a claim. Prove your claim.

I see oxygen so it doesnt exist.

And bad thing also happen to bad people. And good things also happen to bad people. And good things also happen to good people. Where did you get the idea life is supposed to be fair?

AGAIN you made a claim. Prove your claim.

We have no idea if some prayers were answered because god answered them.

 

[AProudLefty]

It's impossible, so far, to prove why the Big Bang happened and whether there is anything outside the Natural Universe. 'Murica is claiming there is nothing beyond Earth life and death including Space Aliens.

Oh yeah. That's impossible. It is my belief that there is something beyond those things. But it is just that, a belief. My experience and also the testimonies from others bolster my belief.

In the end, as of right now, it seems impossible.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Oh yeah. That's impossible. It is my belief that there is something beyond those things. But it is just that, a belief. My experience and also the testimonies from others bolster my belief.

In the end, as of right now, it seems impossible.

Agreed it's just a belief like the belief the Moon was made of green cheese. The most logical reply is "I don't know"....or, agnosticism. Atheism and Theism are two sides of the same belief coin.

 

[AProudLefty]

Agreed it's just a belief like the belief the Moon was made of green cheese. The most logical reply is "I don't know"....or, agnosticism. Atheism and Theism are two sides of the same belief coin.

In the case of the moon being made of green cheese, Occam's razor apply. Besides we can see the moon and we've visited there many times.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

We have no idea if some prayers were answered because god answered them.

I disbelieve God answers prayers. The "power of prayer" is the same as the "power of positive thinking"; humans have a better chance of success or survival if they believe they will succeed or survive as opposed to those who think they are doomed.

A second point is that a god that answers prayers is negating Free Will.

 

[Yakuda]

We have no idea if some prayers were answered because god answered them.

Oh course we do. If you had gotten the pony you prayed for we'd know. You would have told us.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

In the case of the moon being made of green cheese, Occam's razor apply. Besides we can see the moon and we've visited there many times.

I'm speaking of the belief prior to space flight*. 'Murica says there's no such thing as space aliens like Superman because he's never seen one.


*although JPP has some who think the Moon Landing was a hoax.