30 Jun 06
Originally posted by EnigmaticCamSo where is the empirical evidence for god? [note; empirical - not impirical, which I can only assume has something to do with the study of mischeivious little people] As far as I know there is only the whole "well the universe exists, what do you have to say about that?" argument, which is, of course, exceptionally poor logic. That would be an inference, not a deduction.
Refer back to my post where I mention presumptuousness. When I use the word faith, how the Bible itself defines faith, is anything but "without imperical evidence." It is in this way that science is based on faith, not some loosely based blind hope.
But if you want to tackle exactly what evidences one uses to base his beliefs on God, that's a ...[text shortened]... . I just hate how it's taken as a grain of salt when someone says, "I have faith in God."
30 Jun 06
Originally posted by KnightWulfeIs not this definition of faith that you base your argument upon a more recent interpertation of the original as instucted by the writer of the scripture. Which as I understand goes to great length to define faith as evidence based? Evidence of things not seen, allows you to extrapolate as in theorectical physics and even mathematics. This is clearly a scientific process the estimation of a value that falls outside of the range of known values. Faith appears to be a mathematical and scientific construct.
My definition is not misconstrued.
[b]Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Faith: The word faith has various uses; its central meaning is similar to "belief", "trust" or "confidence", but unlike these terms, "faith" tends to imply a transpersonal rather than interpersonal relationship – with God o ...[text shortened]... trusting the word of another.
Hence my statement that religion cannot be proven.[/b]
30 Jun 06
1 edit
Originally posted by spiritmangr8nessNote the last sentence,
Is not this definition of faith that you base your argument upon a more recent interpertation of the original as instucted by the writer of the scripture. Which as I understand goes to great length to define faith as evidence based? Evidence of things not seen, allows you to extrapolate as in theorectical physics and even mathematics. This is clearl ...[text shortened]... tside of the range of known values. Faith appears to be a mathematical and scientific construct.
"In it's proper form 'faith' means "trusting the word of another"".
Scientific "faith" is not trusting the word of another. It is only trusting your data and logic does the rest.
[edit; of course, one always validates ones data in science, by using replicates, calibrating your instruments, comparing with the data of others. In religious faith, there can be no calibration of the bible, nor is there independant replication.]
30 Jun 06
Originally posted by EnigmaticCamSo, the translators of the Bible version you are using used the wrong word. It doesnt change the definitition or meaning of the word. Are you claiming that Muslims do not have faith because you believe that what they believe is wrong?
I'm not referring to the Webster's definition. I'm referring to what the Bible has to say about faith at Hebrews 11:1.
30 Jun 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo, this definition is modern english and would not serve as a fair determinant in any ontological argument. Simply because the term faith was already defined by it's author several thousand years ago. A reinterpretation based upon post intellectualism, is in some ways saying that the originator of the statement was unclear about what it meant to have faith and I quote "Faith is, this preposition serves to show the relation between assurance, evidence and faith. This was not poetry as some would have you to believe, and certainly not allegorical
Note the last sentence,
"In it's proper form 'faith' means "trusting the word of another"".
Scientific "faith" is not trusting the word of another. It is only trusting your data and logic does the rest.
[edit; of course, one always validates ones data in science, by using replicates, calibrating your instruments, comparing with the data of oth ...[text shortened]... faith, there can be no calibration of the bible, nor is there independant replication.]
30 Jun 06
Originally posted by KnightWulfeI read Albert Einstein's work on relativity, then I looked up the definition of relativity? Sorry, but wouldn't hold up in a court of law.
I read it and then looked up the definition of the word FAITH from 3 different sources... Apparently you are paraphrasing the definition to fit your argument. I am stating the bare definition of the word.
Sources: Websters.com, Answers.com and dictionary.com
30 Jun 06
Originally posted by spiritmangr8nessI'm just interested to know what version of English existed several thousand years ago.
No, this definition is modern english and would not serve as a fair determinant in any ontological argument. Simply because the term faith was already defined by it's author several thousand years ago.
30 Jun 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think what you want to debate is transliteration, that is not the question here. How things are defined relative to the language of your native tounge and I'm only assuming that tounge is English. Ninety percent of that language has it's origin in Latin and French. So then it would stand to reason that the English versions of most things would often be suspect. Since the early writers wrote in Hebrew, Amharic, Greek and some Latin. The English are known as late bloomers in the literary landscape and have traditionally transliterated most of what they fail to understand. Oh and to answer your question; NONE!
I'm just interested to know what version of English existed several thousand years ago.
30 Jun 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzCome on, Scott. Are you saying that the scientific community was operating on their individual astronomical measurements prior to Baade's doubling of the age of the universe? Absolutely not. They were assuming (practically any definition of that word fits the bill) that Hubble was right.
Note the last sentence,
"In it's proper form 'faith' means "trusting the word of another"".
Scientific "faith" is not trusting the word of another. It is only trusting your data and logic does the rest.
[edit; of course, one always validates ones data in science, by using replicates, calibrating your instruments, comparing with the data of oth ...[text shortened]... faith, there can be no calibration of the bible, nor is there independant replication.]
And further, before Sandage secured more precise images of HII regions, the scientific community was relying on Baade's measurements, not their own. The fact remains that we are resting on people's findings of the facts, not facts themselves.
30 Jun 06
Originally posted by spiritmangr8nessBut the word we were discussing was an english word. You claimed our definition was wrong. Now are you are saying that it is English that is wrong? Did you just say that anything written in English is suspect?
I think what you want to debate is transliteration, that is not the question here. How things are defined relative to the language of your native tounge and I'm only assuming that tounge is English. Ninety percent of that language has it's origin in Latin and French. So then it would stand to reason that the English versions of most things would oft ...[text shortened]... lly transliterated most of what they fail to understand. Oh and to answer your question; NONE!
30 Jun 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadI did not claim that your definition was wrong, what I am stating is that the original definition is right, and the modern definition is too modern to argue the evidentiary nature of the original word faith, as defined by the writer. Additionally, English tends to transliterate! That being the case, most people are left to the mercy and discretion of the lexicon.
But the word we were discussing was an english word. You claimed our definition was wrong. Now are you are saying that it is English that is wrong? Did you just say that anything written in English is suspect?