GOD!!! The finite topic for an infinite being

[chibimyuutsu]

I've stopped addressing him for a reason. No hard feelings, Wolfie.

Unless you're being a complete moron about what you're spouting out at me.

My breaking point is when philosophy students argue that time is light, and that time is entirely a man made concept. It's like throwing a wrench into a running engine.

I lol'd

[chibimyuutsu]

not suprising
cause I used grammar and evreything

you see this is why I do not

I'm not trying to get anyone made its just better that I do not, I;m easier to read then

This whole thing I've been saying is since anythign in scicne can be proven wrong at any time
You use faith that it is right

What you're saying is, even though gravity is proven to exist, that if I jump off my computer chair, I fall flat to the ground because I have faith that gravity works? And not because it's proven to exist, and does indeed exist? Or is that God smashing my face into the rug?

[Spiney]

not suprising
cause I used grammar and evreything

you see this is why I do not

I'm not trying to get anyone made its just better that I do not, I;m easier to read then

This whole thing I've been saying is since anythign in scicne can be proven wrong at any time
You use faith that it is right

No we use tests and data to evaluate that. We don't believe it's right out of sheer whim. That's what you are saying.

Saying we just have faith is everything science is not.

[Wolfie]

What you're saying is, even though gravity is proven to exist, that if I jump off my computer chair, I fall flat to the ground because I have faith that gravity works

No

E=mc2 (just an exsmaple it may or my not be wrong) is said to be wrong, if so then it would mean we where wrong about it
even when we belive it to be real or did 3 years ago.

No we use tests and data to evaluate that. We don't believe it's right out of sheer whim. That's what you are saying.

No it is not
I'm saying you do test, but it still can be wrong and it may take thosuands of years to be provcen wrong, but we treat it like its right 100%

[chibimyuutsu]

But you said everything in "scince" can be proven wrong.

[Wolfie]

I meant its their belife, the guys on here said so them selfs

Anything on there can be disprocing with new evdince
I dont mean i think it s all wrong

[exoclipse]

Jumping back in: any scientific discovery has the potential to be invalidated or expanded upon by future data, however that science is still greatly helpful in the present term. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are bad science, but helpful science. They work, but with a small degree of imperfection, and only when applied to our own solar system. It's still a useful starting point for our solar system's orbits.

So too is it with everything else that follows the scientific process.

Also, I specifically stated I don't 'believe' anything. I know what the evidence points to, but I don't necessarily know anything. I can't even prove I exist. *shrugs*

[Spiney]

Wolfie is getting things mixed up.

That notion that anything in science can be disproven, based on new fact, he thinks that makes it 'faith'.

While it's just the nature if science, to prove and disprove.

I'm thinking Wolfie just can't wrap his head around it. It's both right and wrong. Sone think yes and some no. Based on our own facts. That's not faith whatsoever. That's more like opinion.

[Wolfie]

Wolfie is getting things mixed up.

That notion that anything in science can be disproven, based on new fact, he thinks that makes it 'faith'.

While it's just the nature if science, to prove and disprove.

I'm thinking Wolfie just can't wrap his head around it. It's both right and wrong. Sone think yes and some no. Based on our own facts. That's not faith whatsoever. That's more like opinion.

Faith is belving in something that can not be proven to be 100% true

[exoclipse]

But see, we don't believe anything is 100% true. Or, at least, I don't.

[Spiney]

Wolfie is getting things mixed up.

That notion that anything in science can be disproven, based on new fact, he thinks that makes it 'faith'.

While it's just the nature if science, to prove and disprove.

I'm thinking Wolfie just can't wrap his head around it. It's both right and wrong. Sone think yes and some no. Based on our own facts. That's not faith whatsoever. That's more like opinion.

Faith is belving in something that can not be proven to be 100% true

No faith is believing and sitting there with your finger up your ass.

What's not faith is working to prove it. We know we may be wrong. That's why we progress.

[Wolfie]

No faith is believing and sitting there with your finger up your ass.

how do you figure?
and uncalled for

What's not faith is working to prove it. We know we may be wrong. That's why we progress.

I know I may be wrong, but i also know i cant prove either way.
your point

[exoclipse]

I can't prove I'm right about God either. I just don't care. I'm going to do as much as I can to benefit other people irrespective of race, or if it gets this exciting, species, as I can, while I'm alive. The rest is book keeping.

I'm...uncomfortable with the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly moral creature. Especially one that allows humans to have enough free will to kill each other for profit en masse.

[zzfallens]

Faith is believing something with no evidence. That's why it's called FAITH.

And just on the notion that you cannot prove something wrong, doesn't make it true or even PROPABLE!

[JJKG]

Faith is believing something with no evidence. That's why it's called FAITH.

And just on the notion that you cannot prove something wrong, doesn't make it true or even PROPABLE!

It's probable if it's got a lot of evidence to back it up, however. Also, it's harder to prove something wrong than it is to prove something right, but based on the amount of eveidence available in the world, I am an atheist. Other people believe other things, which I'm okay with as long as it doesn't have a negative affect on people. Sometimes, however, it does, but at other times, people do good things because of their religion. It's difficult to make a judgement on religion for these reasons, as well as some of the unspeakable things mentioned in various religious texts.

[everar]

I'm just gonna do a mind dump here and say that God is an amazing subject that ubiquitously creates strong feelings and reactions no matter what we believe. Some resonate very strongly with poesy and shared human experiences on some level because the materialist world, when bent in a selfish way for materiality's sake, can be damaging, though I'd say the same for naively numinous storytelling without experiencing life for yourself, in your short time on this planet. No matter what your belief, north/south/east/west begin with you.

We have all these schisms with denominational churches, and even in science between physicists still cloying for new material theories about the speed of light, or ecologists/architects/civil engineers arguing over how we should live just the same. I think it's funny how small and manipulated we can be sometimes, when we choose to wave our favorite banners and refuse to stand in someone else's shoes, walk with them and share meals with them -- love them even.

You are born into this world of infinite symbolism and meaning, and it will eventually all be gone or significantly change, bringing entirely new revelations or simply coming to inevitable rest. God doesn't need to be something that necessarily created us, nor something of a fairy tale, if anything it's amazing to appreciate it as this spontaneous condition that springs from all of us, divides us and unites us.

[Wolfie]

Faith is believing something with no evidence. That's why it's called FAITH.

And just on the notion that you cannot prove something wrong, doesn't make it true or even PROPABLE!

So E=mc2 has worked before we know it works on things as has other things that have been "wrong" even when the work most of the time they are wrong (talking onlky about those that are wrong here)

in which case it means the ecdence is fake, or misleadig, just like whith christainty, we have evdince that pepole who where spoken in the bible where real,l there are evdince that stuff in the bible did happen

can we prove that they where of God? No

We have Evdince that E=mc2 has worked before, or one of the other throys that we used so much before they where proven wrog
can we prove that its right? not 100%
you can say it works where I can say prayer works
it gose in a never ending circle





you take the fact that E=mc2 works sometimes

I take the fact that prayer, and things in the bible have helped

Can i prove that they are right? no, and neither can you as Science can be wrong at any giving time, hell I could be wrong i dont know, but neither do you..
so you have faith


Faith is not a bad thing, its just belvin in something that you do not know is 100% right

I have faith my parents will help me out, do i have evideicne of this? yes
I have faith in Bethsade for skyrim do i have evdince to sopourt it? yes.
your defnition dose not work

Let's just drop it, as we cant get anywhhere with this, what it comes down to is what you belvie faith is, I belive faith is trustuign in somethign you dont know is 100% true.
you don't, thats fine by me

[zzfallens]

I understand what you are saying, but that's the point of what science is. Science is based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of evidence so that it can be preserved.

[everar]

Prayer does not always anticipate a result. It's an open expression similar to playing or singing in a band and making music. Savoring the food you eat is a kind of prayer, whether or not you "say graces" beforehand. There are many different personalities in this world, some drawing upon thinking faculties while others are trusting their gut-feelings and instincts which are ironically inherited from thousands of years before our time. Who is to say who is right. :]

[everar]

Also, it's important to clear up something important about faith. Many Judeo-Christan denominations actually celebrate theological questioning and debate. You may not see it in some of the Baptist or even some of the rather progressive Protestant churches that you recall growing up with, but they are very much out there.

And this view makes sense to me because it encourages people to find out what they want. The worst thing that can come from questioning your faith is... realizing where you want to go in life, and what you want to believe. Who cares about family legacy and having everyone buried in the same plot, under the same rites, if not everyone has the same heartfelt belief? This is something I wish I was more openminded about, but I have yet to understand that kind of patriarchal determinist thought. I think that thought comes from fear of death, and kind of wanting to sort everything out towards an impossible perfection, as many of us are flawed and divergent.

[ZeRoc]

I understand what you are saying, but that's the point of what science is. Science is based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of evidence so that it can be preserved.

And at that I'm throwing my hat back in the ring!

Faith is not denying evidence, it is believing in that which has not yet been proved. Can I deny that evolution has happened? No I cannot for there is too much proof, but can you find proof that there was no divine hand in the evolution of creatures? I don't believe you can.

Faith is a very important word in my religion, so this is something that I take very seriously. Further more I believe this topic was created to talk about God, not a debate on the conflict between science and religion.

[zzfallens]

Then I will PM you.

[JBeata]

Personally, I believe the existence and even the basic characteristics of the Godhead are in fact quite capable of being demonstrated by means of normal human reasoning. Classic examples of this are found in such concepts as Aristotle’s unmoved mover and Aquinas’ handling of the nature of Deity in questions 2-26 of the first part of the Summa as found here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm. However, his meaning may not be as clear to those unfamiliar with Aristotle’s Physics and Metaphysics.

Did no one follow the link I provided?

[everar]

I think it would take a very rare kind of person to be 'suaded by interpretational theorems. Reductionalists will ask you where this information came from in the first place (translations of interpretations of translations of interpretations of revelations, wrapped in historical underpinnings merely because it's inescapable with any recorded document), Agnostics will kind of make a sadface and say TL;DR, meh, and anyone left already "knows" what they believe.

Seeking to know the divine by what it is not, however, can be a good tool. Middle eastern poets did the same in their written devotions about spirituality, and science does the same. The rest of the document mentioning angels and demons and such seems too specific though to be a primer for seeking spiritual wisdom.

"Once the whole is divided, the parts need names. There are already enough names." ~lao tzu

[JBeata]

Thank you, it is nice that at least someone bothered to read the link, and yes I suppose it would take a rare person to be touched by metaphysical arguments. We live in a very sad time for western thought.