What is Faith?

Policing yourself and your colleagues. That IS how science polices itself though.
You are changing your story. You originally said that policing was done individually, not through a group or institution like science. This all started here:
Nevertheless it is evidence. I wouldn't lie about it.
This would make any rational person doubt how good of a scientist you are if you think evidence should be accepted because someone says they wouldn’t lie about it.
So the honor system was about an individual not lying, and now you're making out the honor system to be more than an individual, now it's the entire institution of science. Which is it?

Exactly, policing yourselves IS the honor system. Again there are no science police.
The honor system, which you claimed science works on, means that no one polices anyone else, the only policing is done by the individual. That is not how science works.

In what way is it woeful?
Thinking that there are no police in science.

Many great scientific discoveries were made on hunches and intuition.
Hunches or intuition are not scientific evidence. If a hunch or intuition turns out to be true, it's only coincidental, because hunches an intuition are not evidence. They have no probative value. You still have to go get the evidence. This is another way your understanding of science is woeful.
 
t works great for empirical science but when you get to theoretical science, it doesnt work as well because sometimes unwarranted assumptions sneak in that can't be empirically tested, such as questionable extrapolations into the deep past.
I don't quite know what you have in mind but you're wrong. There is no area of science that holds something true without there being good reason to think it. Where we have partial knowledge that is taken into account and acknowledged.
Well obviously things that have occurred in the deep past cannot be empirically observed. So there are certain assumptions that have to be made. You have to assume that the conditions that we see in the present were still working in the deep past in order to make a rational extrapolation backwards into the past. But obviously that is not always the case.
If you're thinking about evolution or the age of the earth, we have very good reasons to think what we do about them.
The theory of evolution is a good example of the above situation.
El Cid said:
Supposedly in science there are no final conclusions, you need to remain open to other possible explanations.
There are both final conclusions and thinking open to revision pending further information. For example, that the earth orbits the sun is a final conclusion.
I was referring to theoretical science. In theoretical science most scientists think they should remain open to other possible conclusions. The earth orbiting the sun is empirical science.
El Cid said:
No one has empirically seen an intelligent Neanderthal create a spear head, yet experts can tell the difference between a rock shaped like a spearhead and an actual ancient Neanderthal spearhead that has been created by an intelligent mind. So it is with living things.
We were talking of an intelligent mind creating the universe. Just because there are spearheads created by men doesn't mean the universe was created by an intelligence.
No, you missed my point. In both cases neither one was seen empirically being created, so how do experts tell the difference between a rock shaped like a spearhead and an actual spearhead?
 
No, you missed my point. In both cases neither one was seen empirically being created, so how do experts tell the difference between a rock shaped like a spearhead and an actual spearhead?
Though you don't know it, this is why the argument that the universe was intelligently designed, fails: contrast with nature.

When we seek to prove design, we make a constrast with nature - as you did here. But you assert that nature itself was designed... so, what are you using as the point of contrast?

There's isn't one. And that's the problem - you would need to contrast our purportedly-designed universe with a known-undesigned one.

You can't know what a spearhead looks like unless you also known what a non-spearhead looks like, and you can't know what a designed universe looks like unless you also know what a non-designed universe looks like.
 
Last edited:
Well obviously things that have occurred in the deep past cannot be empirically observed. So there are certain assumptions that have to be made. You have to assume that the conditions that we see in the present were still working in the deep past in order to make a rational extrapolation backwards into the past. But obviously that is not always the case.
As to conditions in the past working the same as we observe them now, the fine tuning argument for God states that if the fundamental forces such as gravity were different by even a small amount, then life would not have been able to develop and persist, and the universe would not exist as we see it today. It's these fundamental forces that dictate how things work. Everyone agrees with the premise, but disagree as to why. So we have good reasons to think the universe in the past had the same strength of laws therefore behaviour as we have today.
The theory of evolution is a good example of the above situation.
As to looking back into the past, there are again very good reasons as to why we can do this. Every time you look at a star you are looking back into the past. In the case of the nearest, the sun, we are looking eight minutes into the past, in the case of the furthest observable stars, that's looking back 12.9 billion years ago. Spectroscopy can tell us about the elements within a star …

From spectral astronomers can determine not only the element, but the temperature and density of that element in the star. The spectral line also can tell us about any magnetic of the star. The width of the line can tell us how fast the material is moving. We can learn about winds in stars from this. If the lines shift back and forth we can learn that the star may be orbiting another star. We can estimate the mass and size of the star from this. If the lines grow and fade in strength we can learn about the physical changes in the star. Spectral information can also tell us about material around stars. This material may be falling onto the star from a doughnut-shaped disk around the star called an accretion disk. These disks often form around a neutron star or black hole. The light from the stuff between the stars allows astronomers to study the interstellar medium. This tells us what type of stuff fills the space between the stars. Space is not empty! There is lots of gas and dust between the stars. Spectroscopy is one of the fundamental tools which scientists use to study the Universe.

Found here. So yes, we can look back into the past and glean information.

We do the same sort of thing with evolution. The following is a list of things that give us information about species from the past and therefore evolution …

Anatomy, molecular biology (DNA), biogeography, fossils, embryology, carbon dating etc etc, the list just goes on and on and the information from all of these diverse areas of study all point to the same conclusion, that evolution is real.
I was referring to theoretical science. In theoretical science most scientists think they should remain open to other possible conclusions. The earth orbiting the sun is empirical science.
There is no direct observation of the Earth orbiting the Sun. It had to be figured out theoretically from amongst other things, indirect observation.
No, you missed my point. In both cases neither one was seen empirically being created, so how do experts tell the difference between a rock shaped like a spearhead and an actual spearhead?
Rocks fashioned like spearheads don't occur in nature. What is your point?
 
Without a free will culture and upbringing are irrelevant. You would not have a culture, and as far as upbringing, your parents would just be making sure you were fed and learned how to obtain food, everything else would not exist.
You keep on making claims without support. Why do you think you could we wouldn't have culture without free will? And why would parents be limited to making sure you're fed?
No, I have provided evidence by pointing to other beings that we know dont have free will, animals. Animals do not have a culture or love.
El Cid said:
The NTS fallacy is irrelevant in this discussion, you either have a will or you dont. And animals dont.
It's not irrelevant when you use it to attempt to make a point. All I did was to point that out.

El Cid said:
Yes, I explained it earlier in this thread.
Another claim without support. I'm not saying you didn't demonstrate it, but it's your job to show that you did, with a link or a post #.
Love involves conscious self sacrifice, animals cannot do that. Animals cannot contemplate their own death and realize the sacrifice they are making. Only humans can.
El Cid said:
No, if we didnt have a free will all those things except culture would be programmed in, so they would not be needed.
I don't understand how programming would make those things not needed. What does that mean?
Since everything would be programmed there would be no need for sex education, no need to tell people what is the proper food to eat, no need to teach parents how to raise their children and etc. And yet we are the only beings on the planet that have to be taught all those things.

El Cid said:
Just like animals. Animals dont have culture and the only upbringing is what I explained above.
Just because animals don't have culture, nor free will, doesn't mean that all beings without free will can't have culture. That doesn't logically follow.
See above about how unlike animals everything has to be taught to humans, and then they freely choose whether to do those things. If we were born without a free will and programmed by nature as a product of nature like other animals, then none of that would be necessary.
El Cid said:
Your upbringing would just be minimum to survive.
Please demonstrate that, either logically or empirically.
See above about how we would be programmed to raise our children properly for their survival.
 
No, I have provided evidence by pointing to other beings that we know dont have free will, animals. Animals do not have a culture or love.
1. I've already given you a link showing that animals *do* have culture; certainly not as advanced as ours, but it is still culture.

2. But you're mixing up which claims I'm saying you haven't provided evidence for. I'm talking about this claim:

Without a free will culture and upbringing are irrelevant. You would not have a culture, and as far as upbringing, your parents would just be making sure you were fed and learned how to obtain food, everything else would not exist.
Please explain how animals might be evidence of your claims above.

Love involves conscious self sacrifice, animals cannot do that.
Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Animals cannot contemplate their own death and realize the sacrifice they are making. Only humans can.
1. Do you have any evidence that animals cannot contemplate their own death?

2. Even if animals can't contemplate their own death, death isn't the only sacrifice a creature can make. So animals no contemplating their own death does not refute the idea that animals cannot make sacrifices.

Since everything would be programmed there would be no need for sex education, no need to tell people what is the proper food to eat, no need to teach parents how to raise their children and etc. And yet we are the only beings on the planet that have to be taught all those things.
This assumes that all the programming has to be in place from the beginning (when the creature is conceived, or when its born), but on what basis do you make that assumption? Why can't programming be put in place during the creature's lifetime? The brain's plasticity allows for programming to continue.

See above about how unlike animals everything has to be taught to humans, and then they freely choose whether to do those things.
Do you have any evidence for your claim that everything has to be taught to humans?

If we were born without a free will and programmed by nature as a product of nature like other animals, then none of that would be necessary.
None of what would be necessary?

See above about how we would be programmed to raise our children properly for their survival.
There's problems with the above, so those need to be addressed first. I'm also having a hard time following your point. Perhaps you could just make several declarative statements, as explicitly as you can.
 
We are next-door neighbours.

You pray for rain, because your plants need water.
I pray for it not to rain, because I'm hosting a barbeque.

One of those prayers is not going to be granted.
They both will be answered. But the answer for one will be no.
 
Last edited:
There are no coincidences.
They happen all the time, they can't not happen. It's a coincidence that I'm typing this and a car drove past my house just now.
Not if the Christian God exists. Everything happens for a reason. Of course, we dont always know what that reason is.
El Cid said:
My point was not every prayer is answered supernaturally. Sometimes He answers prayer thru natural law events or the free will choices of human beings.
Then there's no way to tell whether a prayer has been answered or not.
If the Christian God exists and you are a Christian, there is. A Christian prays for someone to be healed and they are. Their prayer was answered.
 
How do you prove that all prayers get an answer?
Can't.

Mic 3:4 Then they will cry to the LORD, But He will not hear them; He will even hide His face from them at that time, Because they have been evil in their deeds.

Jas 1:5-7
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. (6) But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. (7) For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord;

Jas 4:3
You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.
 
Not if the Christian God exists. Everything happens for a reason. Of course, we dont always know what that reason is.
If, maybe.
If the Christian God exists and you are a Christian, there is. A Christian prays for someone to be healed and they are. Their prayer was answered.
So, what if they're not healed? There are more people injured on their journey to Lourdes than are miraculously cured.
 
Which is sound.
Well, do you at least understand the distinction I'm making? There are air waves, then there is our experience of sound.
They are both sound.
El Cid said:
Only if the universe was created by a personal creator is there a correlation by definition between subject and object. If not, then all that was at the beginning was objects, so it is unlikely that a correlation would have ever been established.
This is again an unevidenced claim to justify an unevidenced claim. I've noticed others saying this to you as well.
Is there a correlation between Da Vinci and the Mona Lisa?
El Cid said:
How do you know they are not properly understood?
I have just read the Wiki page on NDE's which is a good place to start. It references known studies and that they are inconclusive as to the cause and what is actually going on.
Nevertheless there are some that can probably only be explained by the mind leaving the body.
El Cid said:
If you replace almost every part of a chair, then it is no longer the same chair. But every 7 years almost every cell in your body is replaced but at the end of the 7 years you are still you. This is evidence we are more than just the physical.
Actually some cells are replaced but others are not. Cells in the brain get replaced very slowly and some not at all.
If you replace all four legs and the seat of a chair, is it still the same chair?
El Cid said:
And if transgenderism is true, then every cell in our body can be the opposite gender of who the person actually is, so plainly their personhood exists independently of their physical body.
This is yet again an unevidenced claim, you go too far on too little. It may be that even if you're right about cells, other physical factors determine what gender a person feels they are.
What other physical factors could determine what a person thinks their gender is? Do you agree that thinking occurs in the brain? For a male every brain cell is a male brain cell. So what is making him think he is female?
 
They are both sound.
Whatever.
Is there a correlation between Da Vinci and the Mona Lisa?
Yes. You offer this correlation as a general principle that you apply to the universe, that because a painter needs a painter, then the universe likewise needs a creator. However, all I have to do in refutation is take that principle and look for something in nature that makes something because of the laws of physics.

So, snowflakes form because of the mindless laws of physics, therefore the universe forms because of the mindless laws of physics. It's the same principle.
Nevertheless there are some that can probably only be explained by the mind leaving the body.
This is an unevidenced assertion. Lets see some facts from studies to back this up.
If you replace all four legs and the seat of a chair, is it still the same chair?
No. But If all of my cells change leaving my body as it was and my memories intact and my thinking abilities the same, then that cells change isn't evidence that there is any more than the physical. Just because cells may change in my brain cells, doesn't mean the patterns established by those brain cells that form memory are changed.
What other physical factors could determine what a person thinks their gender is?
Chemical factors.
Do you agree that thinking occurs in the brain? For a male every brain cell is a male brain cell. So what is making him think he is female?
This is a complex area of study that I'm not sure you're an expert in, but that you are coming to hard and fast conclusions about.
 
Are they? There's nothing about the laws themselves that show intelligent design, you assume intelligent design, then make the connection.

can seem difficult to prove, without some kind of belief

but if we are not using enough things to help us see -- beyond ourselves, and our present beliefs... to become like a real kind of scientist... who is more open-minded to so many possibilities...

then we could miss out ... on really finding out
 
can seem difficult to prove, without some kind of belief

but if we are not using enough things to help us see -- beyond ourselves, and our present beliefs... to become like a real kind of scientist... who is more open-minded to so many possibilities...

then we could miss out ... on really finding out
What can we do? I think going with what can be demonstrated is the rational approach, but yes, keeping an open mind to possibility is also good, but in the end, things have to be demonstrated.
 
Back
Top