Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

61 (27.9%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

8 (3.7%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

97 (44.3%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

53 (24.2%)

Total Members Voted: 216

[Th4DwArfY1]

Theoretically there's a point there: there is always a possibility that everything we ever knew is wrong and gravity does not exist or some such madness.

But in practice it's sort of irrelevant for gravity and chairs

Yea. We can make assertions based on chairs and gravity, but I could use your logic origami to argue that we are living in a muggle world, as the Holy Texts of the Harry Potter Books show. While there is evidence, it cannot be proven. You have to have faith in it.

[cerapa]

Faith is believing in something that cannot be proven. If you sit in your chair, you are believing that it will hold your weight, because you cannot prove that it will hold your weight. So you have faith in your chair. If you don't believe that your chair will hold your weight, you probably won't bother sitting in it, since you don't have faith. While you can gather evidence that the chair will hold your weight, it can't be proven.

It is the same with the Bible. While there is evidence, it cannot be proven. You have to have faith in it.

So, since everything is unknowable, therefore evidence is unprovable and therefore the Bible is true because evidence is irrevelant?

By the exact same logic you could justify believing literally anything. It's basically a meaningless statement, since it holds true for everything.

[origamiscienceguy]

Many things can be proven after-the-fact. Like after you sit in the chair, but you still nead that "leap of faith" before you know for sure.

[MonkeyHead]

If you knew that the chair would break, would you bother sitting in it?

Where did I say I knew it would break?

I was just making a point.

Faith is believing in something that cannot be proven. If you sit in your chair, you are believing that it will hold your weight, because you cannot prove that it will hold your weight. So you have faith in your chair. If you don't believe that your chair will hold your weight, you probably won't bother sitting in it, since you don't have faith. While you can gather evidence that the chair will hold your weight, it can't be proven.

It is the same with the Bible. While there is evidence, it cannot be proven. You have to have faith in it.

What silliness. Of course one can prove a chair will hold a given weight. It is a trivial element of mechanics and material science. Heck, you could even base it on a body of prior experience - in that case, there was only ever one single act of "faith" in the initial sitting. Religious faith is a different sort of faith to holding confidence in a body of knowledge, as it is not and can not be based on such observations.

[origamiscienceguy]

If you knew that the chair would break, would you bother sitting in it?

Where did I say I knew it would break?

I was just making a point.

Faith is believing in something that cannot be proven. If you sit in your chair, you are believing that it will hold your weight, because you cannot prove that it will hold your weight. So you have faith in your chair. If you don't believe that your chair will hold your weight, you probably won't bother sitting in it, since you don't have faith. While you can gather evidence that the chair will hold your weight, it can't be proven.

It is the same with the Bible. While there is evidence, it cannot be proven. You have to have faith in it.

What silliness. Of course one can prove a chair will hold a given weight. It is a trivial element of mechanics and material science. Heck, you could even base it on a body of prior experience - in that case, there was only ever one single act of "faith" in the initial sitting. Religious faith is a different sort of faith to holding confidence in a body of knowledge, as it is not based on such observations.

Not necessarily. While you can run as many tests on the chair as you want, there is always a minuscule chance that this time, something in the structure will be off and the chair will break.

[Th4DwArfY1]

If you knew that the chair would break, would you bother sitting in it?

Where did I say I knew it would break?

I was just making a point.

Faith is believing in something that cannot be proven. If you sit in your chair, you are believing that it will hold your weight, because you cannot prove that it will hold your weight. So you have faith in your chair. If you don't believe that your chair will hold your weight, you probably won't bother sitting in it, since you don't have faith. While you can gather evidence that the chair will hold your weight, it can't be proven.

It is the same with the Bible. While there is evidence, it cannot be proven. You have to have faith in it.

What silliness. Of course one can prove a chair will hold a given weight. It is a trivial element of mechanics and material science. Heck, you could even base it on a body of prior experience - in that case, there was only ever one single act of "faith" in the initial sitting. Religious faith is a different sort of faith to holding confidence in a body of knowledge, as it is not based on such observations.

Not necessarily. While you can run as many tests on the chair as you want, there is always a minuscule chance that this time, something in the structure will be off and the chair will break.

But there is equipment we could use to study the chair down to the minutiae of its being. We can use evidence to show that this chair will or won't break.

Even applying the argument to God is pointless, since if you hold it true for everything, then it doesn't add or take anything away from the argument for existence of god.

[Teneb]

I can prove my chair will support my weight when I sit on it, though.

Which prob means I'm God, by that logic :v

Brb, founding Tempaccism.

There is no God but TempAcc, and He is His own Prophet.

As somebody who wasn't raised Christian, this conversation is bewildering.

Of course Jesus wasn't god. Was he a religious leader? Sure. Did he have a connection with god? Probably. Was he, himself, God? No, of course not.

Meanwhile I'm sitting here just humming "Can't prove the bible with the bible."

you can't prove that the big bang happened.
You can't prove the age of the earth
You can't prove that your chair will be able to support your weight the next time you sit in it.

It's all faith based

The thing about this quote is that Descan wasn't saying the Bible can't be proven. He said the Bible can't prove the Bible, but you could, theoretically, prove the Bible right through other means.

And you can most certainly prove that the chair won't break by sitting on it. Also different kind of faith and all that. But I was ninja'd on those things.

Not necessarily. While you can run as many tests on the chair as you want, there is always a minuscule chance that this time, something in the structure will be off and the chair will break.

Still not the same kind of faith. My chair has no religious implications. There is no higher power behind whether or not my chair breaks. But the more times the chair has withstood your weight before, the more we can be sure it will continue to be so if it's not modified in any way.

[origamiscienceguy]

Okay, you guys are taking the chair example way to far. It was meant as a way for you to understand what faith is.

[Th4DwArfY1]

We know what faith is. Faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence.

What you were trying to say is that your form of faith is as valid as scientific faith, which it isn't.

[Graknorke]

you can't prove that the big bang happened.
You can't prove the age of the earth
You can't prove that your chair will be able to support your weight the next time you sit in it.

It's all faith based

But you can get empirical evidence that supports those things.

For the big bang you've got the expansion of the universe and the CMBR.
For the age of the Earth we've got radiometric dating.
For chairs you can just test it by sitting on it and then assuming that neither your weight nor the chair's strength have changed significantly since last time. It's not as concrete as doing proper measurements but it's also very easy.

And none of those require you to believe they're true before you can see the evidence.

[origamiscienceguy]

We know what faith is. Faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence.

What you were trying to say is that your form of faith is as valid as scientific faith, which it isn't.

there can be evidence, but not proof.

I was trying to show that you have faith in many of your beliefs, to show that having faith in the bible is not a ludicrous action.

[Teneb]

We know what faith is. Faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence.

What you were trying to say is that your form of faith is as valid as scientific faith, which it isn't.

there can be evidence, but not proof.

I was trying to show that you have faith in many of your beliefs, to show that having faith in the bible is not a ludicrous action.

How is evidence different from proof? What would be the difference in me saying "there is evidence water is wet" to "there is proof water is wet"?

[Graknorke]

Proof is absolute, evidence is just contributing to an ultimate "which has the best evidence" decision.

[Adragis]

Or at least not quite as ludicrous.

Admittedly, science (as in, the thing itself) is not on the side of religion, so it tends to turn up more evidence against the former. There are a few bits of evidence for biblical things, but not as many by far.

Plus, there are no absolutes, if you want to be all philosophical about it.

[Graknorke]

Plus, there are no absolutes, if you want to be all philosophical about it.

There's maths. We created the system and it definitely works the same every time, caused entirely by factors that you know. That's why you can prove things.