The Origin of Life

Originally posted by bbarr
Since this is not direct observation, it doesn't lessen the degree of faith required to believe (according to your own criterion). Observing the effects of something is not the same as directly observing it.

Exactly. So you basically require a similar amount of faith to believe both in God and an electron since both are not directly observable.

Originally posted by dj2becker
How did you make that leap?

I think a computer and an electron have a degree difference, with regards to what you observe.

You never observe an electron directly, but only its effects on our instruments. You never observe a computer directly (or tables or chairs), but only its effects on the light that strikes your eyes. If direct observation of X is necessary in order to the belief in X not to based on faith (which is what you said earlier), then your belief that you are looking at a computer is based on faith. The distinction between observing an object and observing the effects of an object is untenable.

Originally posted by bbarr
You never observe an electron directly, but only its effects on our instruments. You never observe a computer directly (or tables or chairs), but only its effects on the light that strikes your eyes. If direct observation of X is necessary in order to the belief in X not to based on faith (which is what you said earlier), then your belief that you are lookin ...[text shortened]... The distinction between observing an object and observing the effects of an object is untenable.

I'm writing my 2nd term essay on just this subject, Qualities (Boyle, Locke and Berkely).

Originally posted by bbarr
You never observe an electron directly, but only its effects on our instruments. You never observe a computer directly (or tables or chairs), but only its effects on the light that strikes your eyes. If direct observation of X is necessary in order to the belief in X not to based on faith (which is what you said earlier), then your belief that you are lookin ...[text shortened]... The distinction between observing an object and observing the effects of an object is untenable.

That is if you want to split hairs. Please don't split atoms while you're at it. 😉

Originally posted by dj2becker
Exactly. So you basically require a similar amount of faith to believe both in God and an electron since both are not directly observable.

Right, and according to your bizarre notion of faith it requires faith to believe in tables and chairs. Why you don't take this as a reductio of your notion of faith is a mystery.

Originally posted by dj2becker
That is if you want to split hairs. Please don't split atoms while you're at it. 😉

Sometimes you have to split hairs to show that a position is stupid and incoherent.

Originally posted by bbarr
You never observe an electron directly, but only its effects on our instruments. You never observe a computer directly (or tables or chairs), but only its effects on the light that strikes your eyes. If direct observation of X is necessary in order to the belief in X not to based on faith (which is what you said earlier), then your belief that you are lookin ...[text shortened]... The distinction between observing an object and observing the effects of an object is untenable.

So what's your take on faith?

I could adapt my definition slightly:

"Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Originally posted by dj2becker
So what's your take on faith?

That we ought not construe 'faith' in terms of direct observation. That we ought not restrict from our evidential sets observations of the effects of things. That arguments against evolution based on violating these two claims are essentially dumb.

Originally posted by bbarr
Right, and according to your bizarre notion of faith it requires faith to believe in tables and chairs. Why you don't take this as a reductio of your notion of faith is a mystery.

I've lost my faith in tables and chairs and now eat and sit on the floor. But lately, I'm having doubts about my faith in floors. Is there any Scripture that can help me?

Originally posted by bbarr
That we ought not construe 'faith' in terms of direct observation. That we ought not restrict from our evidential sets observations of the effects of things. That arguments against evolution based on violating these two claims are essentially dumb.

That we ought not construe 'faith' in terms of direct observation.

By what other means would thou construe 'faith' with, other than the lack of direct observation?

That we ought not restrict from our evidential sets observations of the effects of things

How else do we deduce the effect of things other than by direct observation? Is the addition of more than can be observed not an act of faith?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I've lost my faith in tables and chairs and now eat and sit on the floor. But lately, I'm having doubts about my faith in floors. Is there any Scripture that can help me?

Matthew 14:31 - And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

Originally posted by dj2becker
By what other means would thou construe 'faith' with, other than the lack of direct observation?

Perhaps the lack of any observation, direct or indirect, that can be tested and replicated?

Originally posted by dottewell
Perhaps the lack of any observation, direct or indirect, that can be tested and replicated?

So are you willing to say that a belief in macroevolution requires faith?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Matthew 14:31 - And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

I have an experiment for you since you claim you experience God "directly" in everyday life. Go to the nearest tall building and walk off it. Since the existence of the building itself and the ground below is merely a matter of "faith" according to you (as bbarr correctly points out, nothing is directly observable by human beings) if you click your heels together nothing bad will happen to you. Please attempt this experiment and report back. Tootles.

Originally posted by dj2becker
How else do we deduce the effect of things other than by direct observation? Is the addition of more than can be observed not an act of faith?

I keep saying this over and over, there is no such thing as direct observation

A good definition of faith is belief in something that you do not have sufficient evidence to consider it a fact based solely on the evidence.

Most people accept as fact most things they see, touch or otherwise experience and things for which there experience has given them sufficient evidence to convince them based solely on the evidence that they are facts.
Many people also accept with a more sceptical attitude things for which they have not sufficient evidence for, for example some people dont really take electrons very seriously.
A young child may take as fact (based on what his parents tell him) that both Jesus and SantaClaus exist.
Faith is when the evidence shows something else but you ignore it and believe something else. Jesus made this clear when he invited his disciple to walk on water.