I can only go by what you say. Not what you think.Well then, it's good that I don't think it's synonymous with reality.
I can only go by what you say. Not what you think.Well then, it's good that I don't think it's synonymous with reality.
And I said that is what happens to a greater or lesser extent ("wishing really hard") when you bring it to questions outside its jurisdiction.I said it's jurisdiction is reality. As opposed to an epistemology based on... wishing really hard.
It very much is outside of it. Empiricism can only take you back to the moment of the origination (if there was one) but not to the cause (if there was one). Sure, any theory of the origin would need to satisfy all the subsequent empirical evidence, but the theory itself is not something that empiricism can comment on.The origin of the universe is not outside of the power of empiricism
Not strictly, no, if one strictly abides by, say, the scientific method. The faith comes in believing an interpretation of the evidence as the truth. Most scientists would (hopefully) mostly just talk about accepting a theory as true until such time as evidence to the contrary arises.and there is nothing analogous to faith in science.
You don't know that. The universe empirically exists, and perhaps it contains the secret of it's origin.It very much is outside of it. Empiricism can only take you back to the moment of the origination (if there was one) but not to the cause (if there was one). Sure, any theory of the origin would need to satisfy all the subsequent empirical evidence, but the theory itself is not something that empiricism can comment on.
Belief based on evidence is not faith.Not strictly, no, if one strictly abides by, say, the scientific method. The faith comes in believing an interpretation of the evidence as the truth. Most scientists would (hopefully) mostly just talk about accepting a theory as true until such time as evidence to the contrary arises.
Science assumes the universe is closed. The cause of the universe, if there is one, would reside "outside" the universe, and as such we can not empirically get to it. At best we can come up with ideas as to the cause.You don't know that. The universe empirically exists, and perhaps it contains the secret of it's origin.
All belief is based on evidence. It is the interpretation that one puts faith in, or not.Belief based on evidence is not faith.
All belief is based on evidence. It is the interpretation that one puts faith in, or not.
. This is the evidence. The theist might believe this to be evidence of God, the atheist evidence of something else. The evidence is the same, the interpretation different.
Faith comes, as I see it, when one takes an interpretation as true without possibility of being wrong.
No, proof is what shows a belief to be true. Science doesn't work with proofs. Maths does. Science works with evidence, and tries to interpret the evidence as best it can. Belief is the assumption of truth. Faith is the assumption of truth without possibility of being wrong. At least that is how I see faith, to distinguish it from merely belief. Belief with utter conviction etc. But I accept my view of faith may be different to your own.No. Belief is thinking something is true. It can be or might not be. Evidence turns the belief into true
No "but he might be blind"?OK so far
I try.True enough
It's almost becoming a habit!Also true enough
Before you have belief you must have an interpretation. One then has belief that a particular interpretation is true. Or one opts not to believe. So I stand by what I said in that the theist and atheist, for example, see the same evidence but interpret it differently, with belief following. Both can be given the various interpretations: we listen to theirs, they listen to ours, and then we pick an interpretation to believe (assuming we opt to believe in such a case).No - missed direction. The evidence is the same the BELIEF is different
So theists have no faith? We've agreed that they see the same evidence that atheists do: the tree. We agree that they interpret the evidence differently and hold a different belief. But, from their perspective, they have evidence (e.g. They may see the tree as being evidence for God). So then how can they have faith if faith is nothing more than belief without evidence?Faith is belief WITHOUT evidence ie no tree
Compare this with a scientist who claims (and believes is true) that the cause of the universe is X... (X being their interpretation of the available evidence but not God).
Does the scientist have more or less faith than the theist who believes the cause of the universe is God?
The same can be said of anything (not that it is a tree, that would be silly, but that it is what it is). It is evidence if it is used in support of an argument for a case.The tree is just a tree
I think that's a tad simplistic and somewhat inaccurate. In another thread Jan was asked what exists that might not be evidence of God, but he has yet to answer. Be that as it may, there is no selecting of evidence as everything is considered evidence.Theists come from a conclusion (god exist) and select evidence (the tree)
And again the same can be said of anything. So are you denying that anything could be considered evidence?Again the tree is totally neutral just a tree not evidence of anything
Sure, but the Big Bang isn't a cause it is the effect of whatever caused it (if indeed something did). The evidence the scientists follow starts after the bang (big or otherwise). They cannot follow to before to see what gave rise to the Big Bang. It is outside the realm of empiricism and of science. Any belief as to what caused the universe - I.e. what gave rise to the Big Bang - is based on zero evidence. Or, as you would define it, faith.The scientists has followed the evidence about the cause of the Universe and has put forward a idea (Big Bang)
Sure, some and possibly many start with the a priori assumption that God exists. I don't dispute that. But not all theists started that way.Again theist start from god did it (create the Universe) but have no evidence to back up the asertion
Evidence of what? Neither has any evidence of what happened before the Big Bang, even if one ignores whether "before the Big Bang" makes sense.Scientists has more evidence which is guess you can translate into faith
Why is that a problem? A problem for who, and for what? Are you trying to convert theists to your way of thinking? If so you need to remove them from their a priori assumption that God exists. And that is very unlikely to happen while you discuss matters that are based off of that. It is like trying to fight a fire by brushing away the flames and not tackling the root cause.Two ways of the AMOUNT of faith would be
For me a problem comes because the scientists is limited to the evidence when the amount of non evidence (faith) is unlimited
- Translate evidence into faith the scientists has more
- Translate lack of evidence the theist has more faith
That would indeed be unfair, but in this question there is no objective arbiter determining the result. Both sides state their case and walk off, result not announced, perhaps never announced (until after you die and someone tells you "you lose").Not a fair fight if the defendant says "I didn't do it and here is the proof"
Prosecution says "Yes you did" and wins
So are you denying that anything could be considered evidence?
Be that as it may, there is no selecting of evidence as everything is considered evidence.
Any belief as to what caused the universe - I.e. what gave rise to the Big Bang - is based on zero evidence. Or, as you would define it, faith.
Are you trying to convert theists to your way of thinking?
If so you need to remove them from their a priori assumption that God exists
Empirically derived knowledge doesn't require direct observation. Only observation of something.Science assumes the universe is closed. The cause of the universe, if there is one, would reside "outside" the universe, and as such we can not empirically get to it. At best we can come up with ideas as to the cause.
No it isn't. Some of it is based on wishful thinking. Wanting something to be true based on no evidence whatsoever.All belief is based on evidence.
I agree but a theist probably thinks they have plenty of evidence in the bible☺Empirically derived knowledge doesn't require direct observation. Only observation of something.
No it isn't. Some of it is based on wishful thinking. Wanting something to be true based on no evidence whatsoever.
another visit to discuss reality.
The bible is indeed evidence... That people wrote a book.I agree but a theist probably thinks they have plenty of evidence in the bible☺
Had a visit yesterday..a mate brought his mate around for some free legal advice as he blacked out and totalled a few cars and was uninsured.
So after I told the guy he will get off and everyone was happy the car guy proceeded to tell us how God was real... his arguement was very strong..."there must be a God"...and my mate then told how big foot was real because all those eye witness reports could not be wrong.
I told them what I thought but all still believe what they believe.
The car guy would quote passages from the bible to support his case...that was his evidence and the mate told of people he saw describing bigfoot that was his evidence...and when I raised a valid point, like why have they not found dna for bigfoot or the multitude of errors in the bible is inconsistent with a perfect God and if he followed the word of God why doesnt he kill the folk cutting grass on a Sunday as the bible commands, ...neither changed their belief but were happy to cling to their evidence.☺
All admitted it was great to be able to talk with no one getting upset and each are looking forward to another visit to discuss reality.
Alex
///Science assumes the universe is closed. The cause of the universe, if there is one, would reside "outside" the universe, and as such we can not empirically get to it. At best we can come up with ideas as to the cause.
All belief is based on evidence. It is the interpretation that one puts faith in, or not.
For example, both the theist and atheist will see a tree. This is the evidence. The theist might believe this to be evidence of God, the atheist evidence of something else. The evidence is the same, the interpretation different.
Faith comes, as I see it, when one takes an interpretation as true without possibility of being wrong.
Yes but it also could be offerred in support of my claim the God story is made up...as support for that proposition the bible offers cinclusive evidence as it is clearly made up...it also could be offered as evidence in support of the fact that many theists are hypocrites who say on the one hand the bible is the word of God yet they close to sellect only parts that suit their delussions.The bible is indeed evidence... That people wrote a book.