Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 23:14:39 GMT
But.. If you expect me to believe that you've never put faith in anything ever... I never said 'ever', that's non sequitur. You can't think of one thing I have faith in, or have put faith in since my renouncing of Christianity over thirty years ago. Faith =/= taking a chance Faith =/= hope Faith =/= trust Faith =/= educated guess I don't give a shit what you believe, you can believe faith is a sexual position for all I care... but making up your own vocabulary rules will only perpetrate others misunderstanding you.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 26, 2017 23:19:05 GMT
Now you just want to argue over the definition of, and/or the degree to which something is, "complete". ... Whether or not you call that "complete" I don't give a fck about.
"Complete" was your word, Sport. If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have cut it and pasted it. You said earlier that my betting on something that had only a 5/6 chance of occurring, while recognizing that I had a 1/6 chance of losing, was also somehow an act of faith. "Complete"... as in being fulfilled to the point that you act on it. However else you want to whine about the use of the word "complete"... I don't really care... Knock yourself out. - "YOU SAID 'COMPLETE'!!! AS IN 'PART OF THIS COMPLETE BREAKFAST'... THAT I DIDN'T FINISH... SO IT WASN'T REALLY 'COMPLETE'...NOW WAS IT, SPORT??!!"
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 26, 2017 23:21:28 GMT
But.. If you expect me to believe that you've never put faith in anything ever... I never said 'ever', that's non sequitur. You can't think of one thing I have faith in, or have put faith in since my renouncing of Christianity over thirty years ago. Faith =/= taking a chance Faith =/= hope
Faith =/= trustFaith =/= educated guess I don't give a shit what you believe, you can believe faith is a sexual position for all I care... but making up your own vocabulary rules will only perpetrate others misunderstanding you. You mean THAT vocabulary?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 23:32:07 GMT
My EXACT statement- "What is this disagreement you have with the understood, general meaning of words?"
I ask you again, a different way, what is it about faith that differentiates it from trust or mere belief?
This is part of it-
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Check the forum title.
If you truly think faith = trust or belief in colloquial conversation... try substituting the word 'faith' every time you wish to use the word 'trust' or 'belief'... every time. In short order you'll understand why the differentiation exists.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 26, 2017 23:48:03 GMT
I don't give a sht. Check out the OP that specifically states that is isn't specifically about religious faith..... but, rather, "faith" in general. That's probably not that big of deal for me... I'm not a pussy who gets bent out of shape over the mere mention of the word "faith". Oh snap!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2017 1:29:21 GMT
That's probably not that big of deal for me... I'm not a pussy who gets bent out of shape over the mere mention of the word "faith". ^^^^^^^^^^^^ says the sunflower that created an entire thread about it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 27, 2017 2:17:20 GMT
It's not as in, it's not how science and logic works. I agree. So do you agree that what you stated: 'Yes, because we have an understanding of the laws of physics, and just saying they don't work the same elsewhere is something you have to demonstrate' was unreasonable and not how science and logic works? Not at all.
If you're claiming they work different somewhere. You have to demonstrate that. Just like the examples I gave for how they work different in black holes and at the speed of light. Just how we demonstrated that gravity works by bending space.
Just saying they might work differently doesn't mean anything.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 27, 2017 2:21:16 GMT
I'll ask again... What do you call belief in something based on evidence.... but that still might not be true?A reasonable expectation perhaps? For instance I know the process for the why the sun rises and sets, and although I can't say with absolutely certainty that will tomorrow, all evidence says that it will. Notice it's evidence that leads me to that conclusion, not faith.
It seems like you think a person either doesn't believe something, or believes it to be absolutely true. There are other levels of belief where evidence supports that something is likely true, or could be true, or is just possible, and in those cases I'm perfectly happy to say that I'm actively seeking further evidence so that I can know more about that subject.
However, god ideas don't fit into any of those categories. There is no evidence. And it's very odd to see people organize their lives around the idea as though they know it to be true.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Feb 27, 2017 3:22:20 GMT
You're welcome. By good fortune in this case it does... Again, good reply, and yes, this is what I meant by always. However, I could ask the same about the speed of light, if it's constant velocity as always been constant but this is by-the-by really as I don't particularly want to get metaphysical and go off topic. The point of my original question was that if ArArArchStanton didn't know the evidential for the axiom posited then it's okay to take it on faith; unjustified but still held true. Take your explanation for example; I think you're talking about spectroscopy, which I know nothing about, and I've taken your explanation on good faith because, inductively, I feel that most people tend to speak truthfully and, abductively, you seem to know what you're talking about so have no need to lie. Yes, I have reasoned to this but it doesn't mean that my reasoning is justified therefore known. Of course, I could go and read a physics textbook and fully justify my belief but for now, I take it on good faith and feel no need to scramble for another word other than faith for the sake of sensibilities. I do have one off-topic question though: if this spectroscopy is done within a relativistic method of the universe then isn't the evidential of invariant laws somewhat circular?
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Feb 27, 2017 3:26:05 GMT
Not at all.
If you're claiming they work different somewhere. I'm not claiming anything, I was asking you a question: Is there evidence for the invariant laws of physics? A = invariant laws of physics. Me: Is there evidence for A? You: show me evidence for not A. A = an invariant deity. Me: Is there evidence for A? Theist: show me evidence for not A. I cannot tell your logic from theist logic.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 27, 2017 5:35:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 27, 2017 5:41:33 GMT
That's probably not that big of deal for me... I'm not a pussy who gets bent out of shape over the mere mention of the word "faith". ^^^^^^^^^^^^ says the sunflower that created an entire thread about it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Yeah... Because starting a dialogue about something means that you are bent out of shape about it. An entire thread??!! My word! Here.. I'll put your little guy where he belongs:
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 27, 2017 9:24:40 GMT
Not at all.
If you're claiming they work different somewhere. I'm not claiming anything, I was asking you a question: Is there evidence for the invariant laws of physics? A = invariant laws of physics. Me: Is there evidence for A? You: show me evidence for not A. A = an invariant deity. Me: Is there evidence for A? Theist: show me evidence for not A. I cannot tell your logic from theist logic. That's simple. I'm not claiming either of those exist or don't exist. There is no reason to believe there are invariant laws or invariant deities, and as soon as you find evidence for either, I'll gladly believe it.
The difference is that theists are claiming something exists. I'm not.
I don't know how you think that is the same, or what you're confused about.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 27, 2017 9:29:05 GMT
You mean... "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen"?
As somebody else pointed out... THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF FAITH.
No it's based on evidence. You're trying really hard to ignore that. I have no idea why.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 27, 2017 12:06:24 GMT
You mean... "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen"?
As somebody else pointed out... THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF FAITH.
No it's based on evidence. You're trying really hard to ignore that. I have no idea why. And I bet all of your saws are circular, too....
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 27, 2017 14:06:53 GMT
You mean... "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen"?
As somebody else pointed out... THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF FAITH.
No it's based on evidence. You're trying really hard to ignore that. I have no idea why. Okay.. Here's our conversation: Just replace the word "Brondo" with "Faith"... and "Electrolytes" with "No Evidence"
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 27, 2017 17:20:40 GMT
tpfkar You got that one right.
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Feb 27, 2017 18:02:01 GMT
There is no reason to believe there are invariant laws...
Einstein posited two axioms for his theory of special relativity: the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference (i.e invariant); the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference (i.e invariant). These axioms underpin the GR theory, and therefore what is understood as cosmology. I asked you what you consider evidential for one of these axioms by way of gauging your thoughts on what you consider evidence. Of course you are under no obligation to answer but I assure you, I wasn't trying to trick you as I knew that Einstein inductively reasoned these axioms and I was merely showing an example that I myself don't know the answer to, and so I personally hold faith that these axioms are true (or more precisely, I appeal to authority). Scientists themselves know that inductive reason can be problematic (see pessimistic induction) and another type of reasoning is abductive reasoning: inference to the best explanation, which is also problematic (what is best is subjective, is one critique). For example, given your statement that I quoted above, my best explanation, inferred by your statement, is that if you don't know that invariant laws of physics is a fundamental axiom then you don't really know the cosmology that you adhere to and if you do not know it then you must have faith in it. I don't care if I'm wrong or right in my assumption because my point is to show you that using inductive or abductive premises to deduce conclusive theories, which is what scientific methodological reasoning is, is not as absolute as you seem to think it is; some geezer call Karl Popper even wrote an influential book on it - The Logic of Scientific Discovery. ( I highly recommend this book, it's not an easy read as it's academically dry but the payoff, for an understanding of science without actually doing science, is worth it; no pain, no gain!) To not entertain criticisms of scientific methodology and to hold a scientific absolutist view is dogmatic and scientism by any other name, which is incoherent. Also, it is okay to say that there are certain things in science that one may have faith in due to one's ignorance on the subject, I mean... science per se is a big scary discipline! But I have to ask you: do I seem confused?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 28, 2017 2:20:00 GMT
No it's based on evidence. You're trying really hard to ignore that. I have no idea why. And I bet all of your saws are circular, too.... It's just based on evidence, that's all. I don't know why you keep trying to shove the term faith in there, but it just doesn't apply.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 28, 2017 2:27:00 GMT
There is no reason to believe there are invariant laws...
Einstein posited two axioms for his theory of special relativity: the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference (i.e invariant); the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference (i.e invariant). These axioms underpin the GR theory, and therefore what is understood as cosmology. I asked you what you consider evidential for one of these axioms by way of gauging your thoughts on what you consider evidence. Of course you are under no obligation to answer but I assure you, I wasn't trying to trick you as I knew that Einstein inductively reasoned these axioms and I was merely showing an example that I myself don't know the answer to, and so I personally hold faith that these axioms are true (or more precisely, I appeal to authority). Scientists themselves know that inductive reason can be problematic (see pessimistic induction) and another type of reasoning is abductive reasoning: inference to the best explanation, which is also problematic (what is best is subjective, is one critique). For example, given your statement that I quoted above, my best explanation, inferred by your statement, is that if you don't know that invariant laws of physics is a fundamental axiom then you don't really know the cosmology that you adhere to and if you do not know it then you must have faith in it. I don't care if I'm wrong or right in my assumption because my point is to show you that using inductive or abductive premises to deduce conclusive theories, which is what scientific methodological reasoning is, is not as absolute as you seem to think it is; some geezer call Karl Popper even wrote an influential book on it - The Logic of Scientific Discovery. ( I highly recommend this book, it's not an easy read as it's academically dry but the payoff, for an understanding of science without actually doing science, is worth it; no pain, no gain!) To not entertain criticisms of scientific methodology and to hold a scientific absolutist view is dogmatic and scientism by any other name, which is incoherent. Also, it is okay to say that there are certain things in science that one may have faith in due to one's ignorance on the subject, I mean... science per se is a big scary discipline! But I have to ask you: do I seem confused? It's ok, I never thought you were trying to trick me, and evidence is simply a demonstration of an aspect of reality. It's showing that something is true, or at least part of it.
I'm not holding science as infallible or absolute and don't know why you would think I was. In the process of learning, we admit we don't know things, and we admit that we test many different possibilities, many of which will turn out to be incorrect. And we are fully aware that our current understanding is by definition, incomplete.
The point is never that we claim to be 100% right. We're simply refraining from guessing about things we don't know.
I'm not adhering to anything. I suggest you reconsider my position, or I'll be happy to explain some aspect of it further if you have a specific question.
|
|