FAITH, the biggest excuse for IGNORANCE.

by nicolaou 111 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  EntirelyPossible

  You do realize that the "evidence: you seek for God is philosophical and not scientific, right?

  No, it isn't. You may WANT it to be that way so you can make your next claim, but I want scientific. Speaking of your next claim...

  Scientifc evidence is based on our perception of the natural world as we know it, God is NOT part of that "natural" world (not in the way most see it) nor is God "slave" to our perception.

  This falls under the "invisible dragon in my garage" category. I can claim there is a firebreathing dragon living in my garage, but every time you try to get some proof or evidence, I come up with a new reason you can't (he's invisible, he floats, he's incorporeal, his flames are heatlesss, etc. etc.), then there is no functional difference between that dragon and no dragon at all.

  Belief in the dragon is irrelevant.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  No? why? because that is the type of argument we are having in regards to proving what is outside the universe we KNOW.

  More likely because it is a hypothesis and no one is telling anyone they should live their lives, base their laws or kill people because of it.

  Science can't prove that God doesn't exist correct?, so can it prove that God does?

  Given a falsifiable hypothesis that can be independently double blind tested with control groups, yes. Do you have one?
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  Sorry.

  No problem, PSac. You're still one of my favorite Christians.
• 

  still thinking

  So no need to pay a defence lawyer to prove that you are not guilty then? Make sure you remember that if you ever go to court.
• 

  JonathanH

  Quick check in.

  You are innocent until proven guilty, Stillthinking. You don't need a defense lawyer to prove you're innocent, you need a defence lawyer to make sure the other guy doesn't just make stuff up. The prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty, otherwise you are free to go. It's not the defense lawyers job to prove that you're innocent. You are assumed innocent. The burden of proof lies on the one claiming you did something.
• 

  JonathanH

  @PSacramento

  Science doesn't prove anything, it provides evidence to give a probabilty of something being more correct over something else. Logic and Math are the only things which have anything that can be called conclusive proof and only in their respective domains.

  It's not a matter of science can't "disprove" (read give evidence against) god, it's that trying to "prove" any negative is an incredibly foolhardy task, rather you assume the negative until you "prove" the positive.

  You don't assume leprechauns exist until science disproves them.
• 

  ziddina

  "When you claim that some impossible account from the Bible is true are you doing so because of evidence and honest reasons or simply because you want it to be true? ..."

  Hear hear, Nicolaou...

  And the people who naysay the results of scientific research, yet who will not get off of their lazy duffs and investigate to a small extent the evidence that scientists put forth, are being arrogant, lazy and deliberately stupid...

  Zid
• 

  ziddina

  "I have faith in Christ (and so, God) because I love and trust Him. I love what He did and taught. I believe in what He did and taught. I strive to follow Him, though I come up far short. So if He said He's coming back, then He's coming back. If He believed in God, and called Him Father, and both followed and loved His Father... then I do the same. Because I trust Him. ..."

  "Sometimes I wonder if some of you guys realize just how condescending you sound. Like you're talking to a bunch of not-too-bright children. I know there are some believers who talk about how immoral and arrogant atheists are, and how they want to be their own gods, etc. So I get that you might feel justified... "

  Tec/Tammy, for me personally, as an atheist - NeoPolyTheist, there is a HUGE difference between someone who strives to live up to the underlying 'spirit' of Christianity - forgiveness, kindness, mildness of spirit...

  And someone who flatly denounces every scientific advancement and discovery that inconveniently contradicts their pet mythology [which is basically the words of Bronze-Age Middle-Eastern sheepherders].

  The latter usually comes across as arrogant, deliberately stupid and too lazy to actually do some footwork to see what the scientists might be talking about...

  Scully stated it very well:

  "To me, that kind of faith, one that ignores "indisputable evidence to the contrary", represents not just ignorance as you suggest, but willful ignorance, and the stubborn refusal to consider actual evidence and reality. It's not merely a matter of the individual not having access to the information or evidence that refutes their false beliefs - it's the sticking-fingers-in-the-ears-and-la-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you digging in of the heels and refusing to even consider an evidence-based alternative to their false reality. ..."

  Zid
• 

  still thinking

  That all sounds lovely....but the truth is, that many people have been convicted wrongly (many rightly). The ones that have been convicted wrongly are the ones that have lawyers that don't do their jobs properly by proving thier innocence. Lets face it, juries are made up of human beings. Even though they are reminded that the person is supposidly innocent until proven guilty. They inevitably make a decision based on if they think he has not proven his innocence.

  This is why you then have people being released years after the fact that have proven their innocence. They have proven they are not guilty.

  A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence

  Aside from the related requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence is largely symbolic. The reality is that no defendant would face trial unless somebody—the crime victim, the prosecutor, a police officer—believed that the defendant was guilty of a crime. After the government has presented enough evidence to constitute Probable Cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime, the accused need not be treated as if he or she was innocent of a crime, and the defendant may be jailed with the approval of the court.

  Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence—a presumption of guilt—as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.
• 

  jgnat

  I have a thirty year old mentally ill son with persistent delusions. He calls me daily just to confirm that he will be all right. I try all kinds of techniques to anchor him in reality. I am convincing enough that he will usually go along with what I am saying, no matter that his senses are screaming that he is on the verge of immenent harm. (He has been on the verge of immenent harm in his mind, on and off, for twenty years.)

  The principle I repeat over and over is "Occam's Razor". Given any number of explanations for a cause, the simplest is most likely true. The more complex the explanation, the less it is to be believed. This can be tested over and over in observable events. For instance, if a scientist/mathematician comes up with a simple formula to explain a result, and then tests it against variations of the experiment, and the math still holds up, he has a winner. He can then use other known formulas with his new one to explain many more phenomena. Guess what? The simplest formula to explain the event is nearly always true. (Now at the sub-molecular level, all bets are off. Atoms individually behave differently than Atoms collectively).

  As an example, if DNA can explain the variable inheritance we receive from our parents, DNA is most likely the cause. To overlay this with divine intervention and angels requires a level of complexity that can be dismissed. Because study of DNA produces all the variation that we expect to see.

  Does this mean that we must give up our faith in G-D? No, but don't insist that science has missed something, or is somehow dismissing G-D from the equation. If Occam's razor will do, that is all a good scientist needs.