Statements of Faith - Unanswered Questions

[(Q)]

I just wanted to keep a running tab on the statements of faith which are made here but have no explanations behind the statement other than it is a personal choice. The questions remains unanswered though.

1. How does one come up with the notion of "God and Creation" from the evidence presented by science?

2. How is it that groups are allowed to intentionally offend others?

3. How is that those who are offended choose to be offended?

 

[jayleew]

I just wanted to keep a running tab on the statements of faith which are made here but have no explanations behind the statement other than it is a personal choice. The questions remains unanswered though.

1. How does one come up with the notion of "God and Creation" from the evidence presented by science?

It is the notion that God's mysterious works within the confines of the laws of physics and scientific observation. This is something out of the apologetics from the Discovery Institute in Washington state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement

3. How is that those who are offended choose to be offended?

This is the old addage, "Sticks and stones will break your bones..."

This is also a basic principle in psychology when dealing with anger management. You can only be offended if you allow a person's words or actions the power to offend you.

 

[(Q)]

This is the old addage, "Sticks and stones will break your bones..."

This is also a basic principle in psychology when dealing with anger management. You can only be offended if you allow a person's words or actions the power to offend you.

Fair enough, and I can associate that with the scenario that if I were simply standing if front of a Christian who was threatening me with his beliefs, I would just laugh it off and say the same thing.

However, what happens when a massive group of people, like the Christians, have the intent of taking those offensive beliefs and manipulating government policies or societies or any number of other social issues in the world today; ie. homosexuals, abortion, etc.? How do we handle that magnitude of offense?

We can't just sit back and say, "Sticks and stones..."

 

[Lori_7]

I just wanted to keep a running tab on the statements of faith which are made here but have no explanations behind the statement other than it is a personal choice. The questions remains unanswered though.

1. How does one come up with the notion of "God and Creation" from the evidence presented by science?

there's intelligence implied in the design.

2. How is it that groups are allowed to intentionally offend others?

that depends. some offenses are allowed under free speech in this country. other offenses are punishable. and then you bring up a good point with your next question...

3. How is that those who are offended choose to be offended?

if you're talking about a crime, there is no choice. but if you're talking about a statement or a belief, then you do choose to be offended by it. you very well could choose to dismiss it entirely.

 

[(Q)]

there's intelligence implied in the design.

No, there isn't. That is another statement of faith. Try again without using faith.

some offenses are allowed under free speech in this country.

The offensive nature of religions are protected to spew their hate speech.

you very well could choose to dismiss it entirely.

I do, I dismiss your hateful beliefs as insanity. That still doesn't answer the question.

 

[Lori_7]

No, there isn't. That is another statement of faith. Try again without using faith.

if that were true, there wouldn't be any such thing as science, or at best, any moron could be a scientist. don't insult them, they might get offended.

The offensive nature of religions are protected to spew their hate speech.

and yours is protected too. would you rather it not be?

I do, I dismiss your hateful beliefs as insanity. That still doesn't answer the question.

yes it does answer the question. why in the hell are you offended by the beliefs of those you deem to be insane????? that's insane!

 

[jayleew]

However, what happens when a massive group of people, like the Christians, have the intent of taking those offensive beliefs and manipulating government policies or societies or any number of other social issues in the world today; ie. homosexuals, abortion, etc.? How do we handle that magnitude of offense?

We create organizations to fight their policy with our own policy.

I'm not saying we shouldn't take offense, but it is our choice. However, the intent of the theist in using this argument is to distract.

They are saying saying, "Don't be such a cry baby when I won't listen to you and am convicted and have no choice but to recognize the truth. It is not how I see it, it is how God sees it. I have no choice."

This is an attempt to shift the focus of the debate. Smoke and mirrors?

 

[(Q)]

We create organizations to fight their policy with our own policy.

I'm not saying we shouldn't take offense, but it is our choice. However, the intent of the theist in using this argument is to distract.

They are saying saying, "Don't be such a cry baby when I won't listen to you and am convicted and have no choice but to recognize the truth. It is not how I see it, it is how God sees it. I have no choice."

This is an attempt to shift the focus of the debate. Smoke and mirrors?

What it is exactly is the shifting of the burden of responsibility to a third party, and the third party in the facade is god, when every thing is peaches and cream, or Satan, if every thing is going wrong.

If it were our choice to be offended, could we not extend that line of reasoning to other scenarios? For example, is it our choice to be offended if others were making threats to our lives, to our families, to our property, etc.? Should we just ignore certain types of threats and be offended by others? Should we just not be offended by any threats at all?

 

[S.A.M.]

I just wanted to keep a running tab on the statements of faith which are made here but have no explanations behind the statement other than it is a personal choice. The questions remains unanswered though.

1. How does one come up with the notion of "God and Creation" from the evidence presented by science?

Quite simple really. Both science and religion are based on the premise of causality within the model. When the ball comes rolling onto the street, you brake, because you believe it will be followed by a child. Thats the basis of faith. That there is always a child following a ball.

 

[superluminal]

Quite simple really. Both science and religion are based on the premise of causality within the model. When the ball comes rolling onto the street, you brake, because you believe it will be followed by a child. Thats the basis of faith. That there is always a child following a ball.

No. Negative. And fairly illogical for someone who is usually better at avoiding such traps.

We don't have faith (belief without evidence or direct experience) that a child is following the ball. We have pure reason, backed by abundant evidence based on direct objective experience. Nothing at all like faith. Not in the least.

 

[S.A.M.]

I said the premise of causality. You realise that like time and space, causality is a construct that only works when a model is defined? How many people hit a child before they brake at the sign of a ball?

 

[superluminal]

I said the premise of causality. You realise that like time and space, causality is a construct that only works when a model is defined? How many people hit a child before they brake at the sign of a ball?

Err... duh. Thanks for that. I can read.

And the example of causality you used to elucidate "faith" was horribly flawed. That's all I was pointing out.

Your religious faith comes from an illusion of causality with zero backing from rational investigation.

Simple really.

 

[S.A.M.]

And the example of causality you used to elucidate "faith" was horribly flawed

I was illustrating how people come up with God from evidence based science. Evidence based science is based on the a priori notion that things can be explained logically if we construct a frame of reference. Logic itself however is an abstract construct that presumes causality. Cause---> Effect is an assumption but its faithfully adhered to by the most rational scientist. If we abandon causality, there is no logic, and no evidence based science.

 

[superluminal]

I was illustrating how people come up with God from evidence based science. Evidence based science is based on the a priori notion that things can be explained logically. Logic itself however is an abstract construct that presumes causality. Cause---> Effect is an assumption but its faithfully adhered to by the most rational scientist.

Wow. Ok.

No. Effect following Cause is a definition, not an assumption. It's a logical linguistic construct, nothing more.

The fact that we define effects in terms of causes should make this obvious.

And how do you get to the absurd idea that "...people come up with God from evidence based science"? People came up with god a loooong time before science or logic were formalized. Evidence based science, so far, totally excludes the notion of a supernatural entity called "god".

Where are you getting this nonsense sam?

 

[S.A.M.]

Effect following Cause is a definition, not an assumption. It's a logical linguistic construct, nothing more.

Its the basis of hypothesis testing. What do you think expected results are?

And how do you get to the absurd idea that "...people come up with God from evidence based science"? People came up with god a loooong time before science or logic were formalized. Evidence based science, so far, totally excludes the notion of a supernatural entity called "god".

I was answering the OP, in my own opinion, religion is the reason there is evidence based science. The world is defined by those who believe in causality. Those who did not evolve to make that "connection" between disparate concepts - who do not recognise numbers and colours and before and after - like the Piraha tribe who cannot even conceive of numbers because it would require the concept of causality - probably became redundant.

Faith can move mountains. No scientist searches for first cause in science. He is happy enough with the model he creates to test his own assumptions.

 

[superluminal]

Its the basis of hypothesis testing. What do you think expected results are?

Again, thanks for that.

I was answering the OP, in my own opinion, religion is the reason there is evidence based science. The world is defined by those who believe in causality. Those who did not evolve to make that "connection" between disparate concepts - who do not recognise numbers and colours and before and after - like the Piraha tribe who cannot even conceive of numbers because it would require the concept of causality - probably became redundant.

Faith can move mountains. No scientist searches for first cause in science. He is happy enough with the model he creates to test his own assumptions.

Fine. I'm happy to leave it at that. Have fun wish-moving your mountains around.

P.S. You have an awfully dim view of scientists, considering that you are one.

 

[S.A.M.]

You have an awfully dim view of scientists, considering that you are one.

I'm not sure why you think it is a dim view to recognise that we need models to interpret the universe so that it makes sense to us. It is the only way to work with a seemingly timeless, endless universe. By drawing limits to our own comprehension.

 

[superluminal]

I'm not sure why you think it is a dim view to recognise that we need models to interpret the universe so that it makes sense to us. It is the only way to work with a seemingly timeless, endless universe. By drawing limits to our own comprehension.

No, no, no. You misunderstand.

"He is happy enough with the model he creates to test his own assumptions."

Statements like these and others you've made make it seem like scientists have no imagination and no desire to dream beyond their cold, hard facts. They are humans you know.

You don't need to go on about causality and models sam. Have we not, over the years, realized what we both already know? I get it. Yo comprendo mi amiga.

I only take issue with this causality link you've made God ----> science. I rather think it's Science --- ... umm, what's the symbol for "in spite of"? ---> god(s). That's all.

 

[S.A.M.]

"He is happy enough with the model he creates to test his own assumptions."

Statements like these and others you've made make it seem like scientists have no imagination and no desire to dream beyond their cold, hard facts. They are humans you know.

Some of them forget that their interpretations cannot be extrapolated beyond the model they create and imagine they have found all the answers to the universe.

So yes, they are human, for which one can only be thankful. They are not however more or less human than non-scientists.

I only take issue with this causality link you've made God ----> science. I rather think it's Science --- ... umm, what's the symbol for "in spite of"? ---> god(s)

It would have to be Science <--- God then, since as you say, one came long before the other.

 

[(Q)]

Quite simple really. Both science and religion are based on the premise of causality within the model. When the ball comes rolling onto the street, you brake, because you believe it will be followed by a child. Thats the basis of faith. That there is always a child following a ball.

I don't think that answers the question at all. The faith you refer has nothing to do with religious faith.