Scientific evidence doesn't need faith

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's true in the way that you can't PROVE that 2+2=4 without assuming that our numerical system is right and true, or you can't PROVE that it's raining, even if you can see it and feel it. Hypothetically, it could NOT be raining, and the world is just having one massive schizophrenic attack all at once, or just you are--and you'd never know. But for all intensive purposes, the rain is there, and you can make good decisions (such as taking out an umbrella) based on your assumption that it is, indeed, raining.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

*intents and purposes

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Religion is 1000% based on faith. Science needs about the same amount of faith as knowing your not living in some dream like in Inception

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Nothing is 100% based on faith (much less 1000%)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

He's right. There is absolutely zero evidence of any religion ever. All religions are 1000% faith-based. The Bible is not evidence. The beauty of the world is not evidence. It is ALL faith-based. I am not saying that because it all relies on faith, it is false. I am saying that your claim that it contains any ounce of evidence is false.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

@@997138 (DanielJames): What do you mean there is absolutely zero evidence of any religion ever? (I'm being honest) Please give me some examples and I will try to answer any reasons you may have.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The Bible. Until you can prove that it was divinely inspired, it is useless. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You don't have to prove that it is divinely inspired. Historians and archaeologist around the world view The Bible as the most historically accurate book from that time period.(what I mean by that is that we have more passages from what became the Old and New testament than we have passages documenting other things, Alexander the Great, for instance. Not to mention that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written within the same generation of the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, it contains factual events in it. That is evidence of history, not religion. The whole idea of God and of Christ are purely faith-based.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Most scientists will admit that their findings lead more towards an intelligent designer than that of some random happenstance. How are the idea of God and of Christ purely faith-based? Give me some reasons, because the statement "The whole idea of God and of Christ are purely faith-based" has no premises and is not backed up any way by what you just said.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What can you possible be basing that on? Most scientists are evolutionists. That's irrelevant, anyway. The idea of a divine entity is pure faith-based because it is supported by zero evidence. I cannot simplify that fact any further.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Sigh, I keep making typos.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm basing the fact on science.. some things to think of Stephen Hawking said that "almost everyone now believes that the universe and time itself had a beginning at the big bang. As an atheist here, you need faith that the universe came from nothing and by nothing." Now the philosophical side that supports God is that if God is all knowing and transcends time that means He is and always will be. Which means that since he never came into being (he transcends time) that he does not have a cause. What the second part essentially states is that 'being' can't come from 'nonbeing' many atheists used to be comfortable in maintaining that the universe is eternal and uncaused. the problem is they can no longer hold that assumption, and because they made the same claim they can't legitimately object to my making that claim of God.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't follow any of the points you were trying to make. Stephen Hawking's quote is irrelevant to the notion that a deity is faith-based. He just says that science is somewhat reliant on faith. The idea of God transcending time is a claim purely supported by faith, is it not? So that follows suit with my notion. We have gotten nowhere and we are probably not going to get anywhere. I am not trying to disprove your beliefs in any way, shape, or form. Have a good amirite day.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

a divine entity is not faith based if there is support for it... Most scientists will concede that the burden of proof falls on the part of the evolutionists. You said that there is no evidence for religion. Mine happens to be Christianity and I made the statement on what hawking said to support the idea of a Creator.. "God". Since it points towards God there is evidence that a Creator exists, which thusly is evidence. I can give you examples of how science points towards a God if you'd like. I can give you philosophical reasons of how a caring deity can in fact exist. How is the bible not evidence of Jesus Christ and thus of religion? How is the beauty and complexity of the earth not evidence of an omnipotent Being?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Let's start over. Please provide one specific piece of evidence that shows that the Bible is legitimate proof of God's existence.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The Bible is legitimate proof of God's existence because it documents the Son of God being born and his life, his death and his resurrection with more corroborating evidence than any other ancient text that we have today. If we hold something to be true with far less evidence then something with far more evidence should be held as true. Now I ask this of you. Please provide one specific piece of evidence that disproves either The Bible or God's existence. (I'm sure you have many things you can say so I was not trying to be rude or out of line, I apologize if I was).

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, the Bible is an ancient book written about a man that people believed to be the Christ. It chronicles his life, death, and everything in between. However, how is that proof that this man is actually the Son of God? His followers merely relied on his word. They had to rely on their faith in Him. There are several figures that predate the birth of Jesus. These figures, at the time, were believed to be the Christ. They had followers. They have ancient texts that chronicle their lives. Is it not possible that Jesus' story was just more well-known and caught on more than others' stories?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It is proof that the Man is son of God by virtue that he rose from the dead, was seen after proclaimed dead and then ascended into heaven. He preformed miracles, cast out demons all the while proclaiming to be the son of God. What proof goes against Jesus being the son of God? You're putting the burden of me in all of these situations and I'd like to know why you think he is not the son of God. There are several figures that predate the birth of Jesus, but none of these figures fulfilled prophetic writings like Jesus did.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

and about Jesus being a story. The first three gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke were written so soon after the events they wrote of that any false writings would have been struck down by people who were there and witnessed them. The thing that was so different is that Jesus foresaw what was to happen to him, and willingly took death on the cross for it. (most supposed Messiahs would not dream of that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's kind of a big topic, so it's hard to expect people to come up with it in one Well, one place you can start is with manuscript evidence, i.e., evidence that the New Testament was written by who we think it was written and that our modern versions haven't changed much. (e.g. http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm or http://www.carm.org/bible/textualexample.htm) Now, that obviously doesn't prove that the text itself is true, but with that in mind, there are a lot of reasons to believe it wasn't false - after all, if it wasn't, how come virtually all of the early apostles ended up getting crucified for spreading it? If they really knew they were starting a big scheme, how come none of them actually gained any wealth or power and all of them died for it? This alone is obviously not a proof or a ton of evidence, and you might even find more evidence to the contrary, but it is more than zero. It continues...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

CS Lewis continues that argument even farther for evidence of Jesus' existence. If you want to be more informed about it than I can tell you in a comment feed I would suggest maybe reading books like Donald Miller's (or C.S. Lewis, more well-known but a little less modern). Other common topics for argument include the fine-tuned universe theory. Again, it is important to understand the difference between proving something and admitting something has evidence even if it's not enough. That's fine if you don't feel like reading in more on any of those resources, but then don't claim that none of it exists =D.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Science explains things that we see. Faith explains those we can't.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'd believe in God no matter what. If he's not real, then oh well. But if he his, then sucks for other people.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Pascal's Wager is a fool's bet.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't quite see how.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

whether or not it's a fool's bet it seems like a rather inadequate reason to believe in something.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Science is not the opposite of religion. Science is simply the observations of the world around us.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Exactly.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

but that isn't faith, thats believing out of fear or convenience.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ok you prey when you get an infection and I'll take some antibiotics and we'll see who gets better? Science is figuring out how things work. Someone observes something, then they come up with an idea why it's like that and they test the shit out of it, only with enough evidence is it widely accepted.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You do not need faith to believe what has been proven through science, you just need a brain.

by Anonymous 13 years ago