Faith

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Faith for me is when you believe something without having observations or proofs that confirms it. "

I don't see it this way, since you can have observations and experience
and still have to rely on faith that what you believe to be true is, and
it isn't limited to relgion either in my estimation.

I'm not interested in your views on religion at the moment, that is
another topic.
Kelly

We have different views of what faith is. That's fine with me. But don't tell me that BigBang theory is faith, and faith only, because in this case you don't know the science behind it.

I see faith as a religious word, you are not interested, fine. Here in Spiritual Forum, we are allowed to talk religion. I have the right, here, to talk about religion. And, in my opinion, faith is a religious word.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I still don't get it. When you have faith, do you have any evidence that indicates that what you believe is factual?
If your faith is not based on evidence, what is the reason for it? Where does it come from? Do you simply pick a concept at random and decide to have faith in it?
There must be more to the process if you are truly claiming to know factual ...[text shortened]... ds at the time of Noah drowned was it due to lack of faith, or is faith specific to a religion?

Its not picking at random. Its a combination of many things.
There is some proof, there is gut feeling, there is indoctrination.
I cant explain further. If you like call it illogical, irrational, even just plain dumb. The thing is that faith gives the believer a sense of satisfaction that cannot always be put into words.

Quotes are original by FabianFnas
If faith is a good thing, is suicide a good thing if it comes out of faith? I say no. Faith is not always a good thing.
I will not discuss that.

So when somebody says I belive in the BigBang theory out of my faith, [...]
There are 3 different meanings of "believe".
First in the meaning of "I believe in god", the meaning of faith, and 2nd in the meaning of "I believe, that the riemann's assumption is true, but I cannot proof, but I think in the next 200 years they will proof".
And last but not least, "I believe, the apple will fall to the ground".
According Maxwell, that will be the case, but with a very little liklyhood it will fall through the globe and reappear on the other side, because the apple is not only a particle, but a wave.

I say faith is a 'religious' word, but we often use the word 'faith' in a sloppy way. d´accore! But the same is true (I believe;-) ) for the word "believe"

Do I have faith that my next paycheck will come as agreed?
Do I have faith that my car will start tomorrow morning despite subzero temp?
no, you just think, thats the most likely thing and call that "believe" and use the nearly synonyme "have faith in".

Do I have faith that I'll take my next exam?
I thought, you are a teacher, so its in your hands ;-)

Do I have faith that the next election will go as I want?
No, you just "believe" it (or hope, that obama is being elected)
Do I have faith that we all can agree of the the word 'faith' means?
No, you know, we don't, your last question is theorical.

If faith is a good thing, is suicide a good thing if it comes out of faith? I say no. Faith is not always a good thing.
Ok, and now I will discuss that, nevertheless, and expand that to your origin question, whether faith can be more valuable than life.
To mention a "good thing" means, that you have a definition of "good thing". Most define "good thing" as "good in the meaning of my faith", religious or materialistic (or is it the same?) - you need a scala for "good".
So, because there is no commonly accepted meaning of "good" (my personal preference is Emanuel Kant), you cannot deside, whether a suicide is ok or not. In my eyes that does not matter. The problem arises, if someone demands, that the death of other people is according HIS faith and ignoring the faith of the affected people

I think faith need not necessarily have a religious connotation but it has to be based on some type of facts. Example: A bridge is built but a car has never been driven over it as of yet. By every standard engineering and otherwise the bridge should be safe for a car to drive over without collapse but how do we know for sure? A car must be driven over it. I think that is where the religious connotation comes in however. What good is faith if it is not put into practice. We do a lot in our everyday lives that could be considered practicing faith.

Manny

Originally posted by FabianFnas
We have different views of what faith is. That's fine with me. But don't tell me that BigBang theory is faith, and faith only, because in this case you don't know the science behind it.

I see faith as a religious word, you are not interested, fine. Here in Spiritual Forum, we are allowed to talk religion. I have the right, here, to talk about religion. And, in my opinion, faith is a religious word.

I have to ask, exactly how long ago you believe the Big Bang happened?

Now, once you answer that, why do you think that is true?

Now that you answered that, can you be wrong about any of the
reasons you believe the Big Bang both occurred and when it occurred?

The notion you have science behind it is basically a reason to believe
and does not mean it happened the way you think it did. I can loan
you money and you have a grand track record on repaying your debts,
and I will be acting on faith that you will indeed repay the loan. That
loan does not have anything to do with religion, and yet faith is part
of the process and prior history is also part of the process. Faith does
not always mean God, or blindness on part of the person who is acting
upon their faith.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have to ask, exactly how long ago you believe the Big Bang happened?

Now, once you answer that, why do you think that is true?

Now that you answered that, can you be wrong about any of the
reasons you believe the Big Bang both occurred and when it occurred?

The notion you have science behind it is basically a reason to believe
and does not mean ...[text shortened]...
not always mean God, or blindness on part of the person who is acting
upon their faith.
Kelly

You ask me about BigBang. I don't think BigBang has to do with it. What has to do with it is a question about how we can rely on science at all, and how science work in order to know more about things.

So, if you ask me how we know that gravity exists? Same kind of question, same kind of answer. Apples falls with a very predictable manner. Observations has been done, measurements has been done, everything goes by the theory of gravitation.

So: We make observations, and we deduce theories from the observations. We propose a new experiment where we know what will happen if the theory is true. If the theory gives us the foreseen result, then we take it that the theory is truer than before. If any other theory more easily can explain the observations made, then we adopt the new theory. We do that without problems, has been done several times.

BigBang is the theory that explains the observations best of all other theories. No other theory can explain the backgoround radiation as good as the BigBang theory.

If creation can explain the background radiation with all its properties, distributions and all, then even scientists change theory to creation, do doubt. Creation as a theory hasn't done that, therfore it taks a certain abount of faith to belive in the theory of creation.

You believe in Creation. How do you explain the background radiation? Why 2.7 Kelvin? I'm sure you have to look it up from some Creation source, but please do anyway.

Btw - most of the cosmologist take 13.7 billion of years +/- 200 million of years as the age of the Universe. I'm not so sure of this age. But it is quite good estimation anyway. Why am I not sure? Because I don't know enough about the dark energy. Well, it's far away from the 6000 years that YE creationists believe, those can we laugh at.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You ask me about BigBang. I don't think BigBang has to do with it. What has to do with it is a question about how we can rely on science at all, and how science work in order to know more about things.

So, if you ask me how we know that gravity exists? Same kind of question, same kind of answer. Apples falls with a very predictable manner. Observations ll, it's far away from the 6000 years that YE creationists believe, those can we laugh at.

We rely on a lot of things in our lives, science being one of them, but
science isn't about proof, it is about possibilities, probabilities, and
people march down life being given things from science that may or
may not be true as if it were, acting on faith that they were given
is tried and true information at all times.
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You ask me about BigBang. I don't think BigBang has to do with it. What has to do with it is a question about how we can rely on science at all, and how science work in order to know more about things.

So, if you ask me how we know that gravity exists? Same kind of question, same kind of answer. Apples falls with a very predictable manner. Observations ...[text shortened]... ll, it's far away from the 6000 years that YE creationists believe, those can we laugh at.

So you rely on someone else' work on the age of the universe and
how and when the Big Bang occured?
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You ask me about BigBang. I don't think BigBang has to do with it. What has to do with it is a question about how we can rely on science at all, and how science work in order to know more about things.

So, if you ask me how we know that gravity exists? Same kind of question, same kind of answer. Apples falls with a very predictable manner. Observations ...[text shortened]... ll, it's far away from the 6000 years that YE creationists believe, those can we laugh at.

You are attempting to make faith on par with science when they are
two different things that at times do the same thing the same way.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are attempting to make faith on par with science when they are
two different things that at times do the same thing the same way.
Kelly

Just give me your theory of Creation. If you can make it scientifically probable, then I see it as one theory among others. Else I see it as your religious view, and only so.

I have no problem with the faith of creationists.
They believe in something, which I don't.
So what?
I have a problem with the methods, the creationists propose their
faith - normally they say, that every other theory is wrong.
So they call them as they have the ownership of truth.
To proclaim the ownership of truth is a very radical concept.
The christian religion, my moral homeland, invented the concept
of tolerance (my translation machine suggested "catholicity" as a
synonym for "tolerance" - as a Roman Catholic I was very astonished ;-)
). I am missing this catholicity by the creationists (and a lot of others).
Creationists can be found in most religions. American protestant fundamentalists,
islam extremists, hindu and buddhists. Perhaps not all are lacking tolerance,
but all creationists I have talked to (christians and muslims), did not accept different oppinions for that

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Just give me your theory of Creation. If you can make it scientifically probable, then I see it as one theory among others. Else I see it as your religious view, and only so.

Creation isn't a theory, I've been saying that for years, I was under
the assumption you knew that and agreed with me.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Creation isn't a theory, I've been saying that for years, I was under
the assumption you knew that and agreed with me.
Kelly

…...Creation isn't a theory..…

I don’t understand because I must have totally misunderstood you here -if you are saying that your view on creation is NOT a “theory” then are you implying here that it is a “fact” -or what?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…...Creation isn't a theory..…

I don’t understand because I must have totally misunderstood you here -if you are saying that your view on creation is NOT a “theory” then are you implying here that it is a “fact” -or what?[/b]

Creation is a matter of faith, it is a story that is either accepted or
rejected, it can still be true, but it isn't science.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Creation is a matter of faith, it is a story that is either accepted or
rejected, it can still be true, but it isn't science.
Kelly

Yes - the belief in Creation is “a matter of faith”, but that “belief”, like all “beliefs”, is a “theory” (even if only one person has a given belief), even though, in this case, it is not a “scientific theory” -at least that what I assume everybody means by “theory” in normal everyday English?

I got this from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

“In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an OPINION, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.”
(my emphasis)

Even if you would describe the belief in Creation as a mere “OPINION”, as you can see from the above, according to the above, it would still be regarded as a “theory” in everyday English.

So it seems to me it is correct to say “Creation is a theory” although, of course, as you said, it isn’t part of science, and so it isn’t a “scientific theory” .