Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

Hi pussy, Look, we all know the history. Your wife banged some other dude a long time ago and had you falsely raising children who weren't biologically yours, and this has cause great pain in your life and a deep feeling of inadequacy. Probably leading to questions about your own sexuality and has hindered your abilities to perform as a man. And we are all sorry you had to go through that ... truly, we are. But, like Straggler pointed out, you used the words "your parent" and "your children" which kinda makes them belonging to him.And biologically, there is a method to verify (which is sadly the method used to inform you that your neighbor fathered your kids). But there's no method to find out if god is real. So, while people may believe the child is biologically theirs, they do so while also knowing that at anytime, if they wanted to, they could easily check it.Some of us have due to us having rare blood types that we placed in a blood bank in case our kids needed it. But, if you question if god is real, and asked for a method to find out if it's true or not, no method would be available to you, and as such could ONLY be taken on faith.- Oni

Hi RAZD, hope all is well. Because agnosticism assumes the question "is there a god?" is relevant. It assumes the premise is true and should be given thought to, before the premise has been given a reason to come up.The methods of science works in the opposite direction; a phenomenon needs to be established to have occured, then it works toward a logic answer.What phenomenon has taken place that needs to be looked into that relates to a "god?" In other words, why is "is there a god?" even a question?Agnosticism gives validity to the question where as science needs to establish that there even is a question.That's why I feel agnosticism is not a relevant, or even a worth while, approach for science.Personally I've always thought it was theism/diesm/agnosticism vs atheism - all of those assume the premise, where as one (atheism) must first need a reason to even ask the question.- Oni

Hi RAZD, Without going into the obvious default argument - how do you know I haven't heard of it? - lets assume I haven't. I would say that I'd wait to hear it before I can know what my position would be. And this would be true for things that I claim don't exists.But I have not said "X" doesn't exist, in fact, I don't even get to the question yet. What I'd like to know is, for what reason is the question being asked?If the question was, do I believe there is life on other planets? I'd first like to know, for what reason was that question even needed? Some will say, well there's life here, naturally emerged from basic elements found on many other terestrial planets, so it's a fair question to ask whether life exists elsewhere.Personally I feel that's a good reason for the question.But likewise, if I'm asked, do I believe there's a teapot orbiting Sirius? I again would ask (given that we are applying a scientific methodology), for what reason is that question even needed?The answer would have to follow the same logic that was applied to the life on other planets question. Until that's logically established, then the question merits no answer. And, find something currently studied in science that doesn't apply that same logic.I don't have to be agnostic for questions like the teapot (or god) because there is no logical reason to even ask the question. Neither are yours ... your point? Thank you. ...of an established phenomenon. There must be something for which evidence is being gathered, right? I agree with all of that, but you ignored my point.All of the above that you mention is done, in that manner, however, it can only be done once a phenomenon is established to have occured. If we have no phenomenon in question, then we have no reason for a hypothesis, let alone a need to gather evidence to support the theory. Do I need to put a sad face here to express how much it hurts to read that I don't care? lolAs I suspected though, you didn't directly answer the question. Again, what phenomenon has been established to have occured for which "god" is a possible hypothesis?I suspect that you won't directly answer it again, but to me (and I can only assume other atheist as well) this is the crux of the matter - Why are humans trying to find an answer to a question that they have no objective reason to ask?- Oni

Hi Meldinoor, Well in this instance it does because it's dealing more with the methodology of scientific inquiry. Right. Now, take it one step further and ask yourself (or propose the question to people) WHY would you need to deal with the existence of pixies in the first place?I could ask you to disprove their existence; if you can't, I would then tell you you must remain agnostic to their existence. But the point would be for you to ask the person for their reason for inquiring about pixies in the first place.This is how science would approach the issue and ask, for what reason is anyone asking about pixies (god/unicorns/leprechauns/etc) to begin with?Is there a phenomenon in question for which natural causes is somehow not going to be the end result? This is impossible, IMO.Human inquiry works from simple to complex - let me explain that better.All of the knowledge we've acquired stems from a basic analysis of nature, working from the simplest to the hardest. We learned about atoms, then the nucleus, then about quarks, and hopefully one day, string. But NOT the other way around. The atom phenomenon had to come first, before the nucleus, quark, string (etc.).The god question, IMO (and if I'm wrong we're here to debate it), works in the string-to-quark-to-nucleus-to-atom direction - in other words, it works opposite to how science works. It assumes the premise BEFORE there is an objective reason to assume there even needs to be a premise.Now, why is it impossible to propose the god question (assuming that god means "the creator of the universe") - Because, humans have not yet reached a point in our common knowledge about the universe to suppose a need for a cause.As an analogy: We haven't yet discovered the atom, to assume there might be a nucleus - let alone quarks and possibly strings.What phenomenon have humans witnessed from Earth that would lead them to assume there might be a cause for it that is equal to the god concept?IMO, it is beyond current knowledge to even propose the question, because the question begs for a logical reason to have asked it. Well thats another issue. Once we allow subjective experiences to lend credibility to the question, then the question loses it's point.If, because of subjective reasons, you would ask someone else, Is there a god? Then the person is well within their right to ask you what YOU mean by god. And that's where it falls apart.At the very least you get something along the lines of "The creator of the universe." Which falls back to the point I made about humans not having enough common knowledge about the universe to suppose it needs a creator.Point being: There is no logical reason to ask the question - if we are using the methodology of science as the proper method for inquiry.- Oni

Hi Meldinoor, btw, Happy belated B-day. If you get a chance, check out the pseudo-thread and read Rrhain's posts.The point is that if anyone makes any claim (whether it's true or not) the initial position in science is the null position. That is the starting point.Example, if you were to say to me, "water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen," (think back to a time before we knew that was true) my initial position is, "no it's not."Now, it's up to you to prove that it is - if we're follow a scientific methodology (which I think most will agree that it's the only way of investigating questions in nature). Think of Einstein and relativity. It was no use to just say what he thought gravity was, he had to demonstrate it.Likewise, if someone claims the supernatural exists, or god, or whatever (telepathy/ghosts/spirits/etc) the initial position is "no they don't," and now its up to the one making the claim (ie. Einstein, Darwin, Copernicus) to demonstrate why it is true, or at the very least, show some supporting evidence for why it might be true.In science, that would mean the evidence must be objective. I mostly agree with all you've said, but let me ask a question. Do you think you should be a 4/7 regarding the existence of ambiguous concepts?IMO, the null position makes the most sense. Flat out, it doesn't exist until...This forces those making the claim to do the work of producing the proof we would require for any other claim (we don't teach water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen simply because someone subjectively thinks it does. No, we demanded proof). So why should supernatural concepts be excused from this rigorous testing method? (A method that has proven to be the most successful in understanding our world, in fact, our reality)That's why I often don't like the Dawkins scale, because it has "atheist" on it. When atheism is not an actual "position," but really, it's the lack of position. It's the null position.- Oni

Well we did have evidence to support the hypothesis that water is on the moon. So there wasn't "absence of evidence." There was plenty of evidence to support the hypothesis, just as there's evidence to support the hypothesis that other terrestrial planets, even some moons around gas planets, have water.Here's an equal claim but one for which no supporting evidence can support it: There is water on the Sun.Now, since there's no evidence to support that hypothesis, one should take the null position that there isn't water on the Sun, until someone presents evidence to support just the hypothesis alone.But again, this falls back on my previous reasons why "is there a god?" has no relevance. There is no reason to suppose there is one. There is no reason for the god hypothesis.Likewise, there's no reason for the "Sun has water" hypothesis; they're both irrelevant questions.- Oni

You're right, I should have been more specific. There is no objective evidence to suppose the god hypothesis. However I will admit that there is no shortage of subjective evidence for it.And appeals to authorities, which I would say your mom and the Bible are, is not (IMO) a good reason.But they're subjective, so I won't argue that they're not relevant to the individual. They're just not relevant in a scientific way.- Oni

Right, agreed. We experience life subjectively so I agree that it's a seperate issue in our everyday lives.But in the context that this discussion is taking place, it is the lab that I'm talking about.I refer you to Message 52 from RAZD and my response in Message 54. It's in regards to how science should approach it.Also see Message 61, and Message 68, these also will explain the context better.As I said in message 68: "Well in this instance it does because it's dealing more with the methodology of scientific inquiry."- Oni

They absolutely could be. Not in the observed phenomenon-reason for inquiry kinda way.What objective reason does anyone have to suppose god exists? What objective phenomenon is leading to this question?If the question was for the strings in string theory, the logic would follow this way:Well we discovered molecules; inside them we found atoms. Then we thought, since there was something in the molecule, there might be something in the atom? And wouldn't you know it, there was. So we said fuck it, maybe there's something in the atom too, and boom, we find the nucleus; then we found quarks in them too. So we figured, logically the next step is to find out if there's something inside quarks - we (they) predict strings.That is logically sound. There is objective evidence and logical reasoning to suppose the string hypothesis (even if there will never be objective evidence for the string itself).There is no objective evidence to support the god hypothesis, or to even support the need for the "Is there a god?" question.In string theory, there is a reason to ask the question. There was stuff inside molecules, atoms, nucleus, quarks ... maybe there's something in quarks because it follows that there might be.The god question does not follow this level of logic. It is an out of the blue question with no objective reason to even ask.There is equally no reason to ask if there's a teapot orbiting Sirius. If there exists an IPU. If the FSM exists. If fairies exist. If unicorns exist. If god exists.These questions are unnecessary.- Oni

But that says nothing in support of the need to ask the question in the first place. There was a time when everyone believed in a geocentric solar system; in fact, a geocentric universe because they thought the solar system was all there was. There was a time when everyone thought the earth was flat. There was a time when everyone thought slavery was ok.Majority beliefs are evidence of nothing, other than majorities usually think alike. It is natural for a social group to share views and beliefs, even without reason. You need an objective phenomenon that requires an answer to suppose any hypothesis. What is the phenomenon that needs answering that the god hypothesis will answer?- Oni

I don't doubt that you do, and that the question feel relevant to you. Like what? All it is reason for is to ask why those people feel the question is relevant.If I ask you why you feel it's relevant, and you answer, because a million people feel it's relevant. Then my next question is why a million people feel it's relevant? - Because a billion feel it's relevant? OK. Then why do a billion feel it's relevant? So on and so forth.You just moved the question from an individual to a group, to a larger group, to an even larger group - and no one answers the question.- Oni

It's the same as asking why the individual believes and saying maybe it's because there's a god; it's no difference by increasing the number of believers. But that doesn't give any reason to ask the question in the first place. No other question would be allowed to get away with that except for the god question.There is no area of scientific inquiry that is being studies because a million people believe it's true, or because they feel it should be asked. For everthing we study, there is objective reason to inquire other than popular belief.If we can all agree that the scientific method is the best way to investigate (and even RAZD had admitted this) then the god question should not be asked. Personal reason (subjective reasons) are not relevant in science; what eveidence supports the need to ask the question in the first place? Why? What's their reason?- Oni

I'll answer this in the reply to this: One, you are advocating another method to investigate reality other than the scientific method. I disagree completely and I don't think you'll find much support for that.Two, we are not dealing with everyday situations; unless you're saying that everyday you're bombarded with situations that you cannot explain naturally.So it is my understanding that we are dealing with something unique, and specific.The scientific method is the best, and I'd say ONLY, approach to investigate.But here's another point, you said, highlighted above: "I've moved from the purely scientific standpoint..."Well, then you don't get to define the reason as objective! That's your subjective interpretation. So the reason only appears objective to you, because you are subjectively viewing it that way.- Oni

Who said anything about crazy?Let me try to break it down like this, people have decided to take a position on a question for which no reason has ever been shown to ask in the first place.Now, I agree that it seems like the majority has decided that there is a god. No doubt about that (although I think the numbers are rising for our side).But, what that majority failed to do was ask why the question was needed in the first place. And we could ask why that is.Well you alluded to it earlier as a reason for belief "my mom told me."Exactly. The question of god is already circulating in society so people are already picking a side at an early age - sometimes, they don't even get the chance to pick a side, they're just told he exists and period.In fact, Britanica started a thread about his 5 year old asking him about god. Well how did that 5 year old even know what the word "god" meant? She didn't ask him if atoms exist - somebody talked about god around her and she felt the question needed an answer.To me the best answer (not for the 5 year old mind you) is to ask someone, like I asked you, whats your reason for asking the question to begin with?If the best anyone can come up with is, well other people believe, then it seems like a logical reason isn't going to be found. And it seems like indoctrination is at work; we are indoctrinated to ask the question. 1 person, 1000 people, a million people, the question remains the same, whats the reason for asking?Indoctrination is the reason IMO. We are indoctrinated to ask the question. What other method would that be?Keep in mind that by saying we shouldn't use the scientific method, you're saying we should abandon formulating a hypothesis. Therefore you don't get to call "god" a hypothesis for an answer to a phenomenon. You abandon that right when you abandoned the scientific method and replaced it with anoher (yet to be described) method.You can't have it both ways. Explain. So we're back to the individual. A 2000 year old book, written by many (unknown) authors, claims in one of the stories that a guy saw a burning-bush ... lets call it what it is. And if a guy told you that today you would think he's fuck'n nuts. When do the individual accounts, like the crazy one you mention about a burning-bush, simply turn credible?How does a million crazy accounts (no different from one crazy account) become a thing to logically believe in?I know you want to maintain that it does, but why? You wouldn't let anything else get away with such BS ... why this?- Oni

Hi iano, There's two ways you can approach that, IMO.One, you can ask the relevance of the overall question: Is there a god?The logic here is, why would one need to ask that question to begin with? IOW, what would that question be an answer for?The second approach is, if you accept that the question should be asked, to consider whether the concept of god has observable consequences? (ie. does it have somekind of effect that can be detected?)If there are no observable consequences and no observable reason to ask the question, then the concept of god is not necessary to understand the workings of reality (our universe, etc.).This, IMO, is what gives us the parameters by which to judge the likelyhood of ANY concept/idea. We do it for any concept, why does the concept of god get a pass?If it doesn't measure up, then the likelyhood is low, if it does measure up, then the likelyhood moves forward in a positive direction. At which point, the accumulation of supporting observable evidence brings us closer and closer to the truth.Now, the way I see it, when someone makes the giant leap in imagination to consider god is outside of reality (ie. outside of our universe) - having no evidence to support that concept - they are doing so to compensate for the lack of logic and reasoning that their personal belief has.They must fathom some unknown variable (outside of the universe) to help make sense of the lack of evidence that supports their concept of god.It has no observable consequences, nor is there observable reason to ask the question in the first place. By those parameters, the likelyhood is quite low, and it's the same for any other concept or idea we have. God doesn't get a pass.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.