the problem with not believing in god

it's a well known truth that fact cannot be proved 100%, that is because nothing can be proved to be 100% correct because there is always the possibility it can be disproved later on, a day later, 100 years later, but there is always that possibility it can be proved to not be fact; that is why scientists state "we can say with 99.9 certainty... etc..." never 100% - therefore, why do people say "for me to believe in god i would have to see the facts", where we know for certain fact is not 100% proof...

if god did appear it's no longer based on faith... it's now based on fact, that is why he wont appear, faith is greater than fact, once faith is removed we are only left with fact, and fact - as we have already seen - has flaws... from the flaws we have already seen regarding fact, it would also present us with these problems:

if god did appear people would accept that was the true image of god and so if he appeared again in a different form people would deny his existence

if god did appear people still wouldn't believe it

what is fact, what could god do to prove his existence once and for all, whatever you say, that proof will still be based on fact which could be disproved at a later stage

people rely on fact to prove god's existence, god doesnt rely on fact to prove it

fact is seeing proof from the outside, faith is seeing it from the inside

fact can be disproved, faith can never be

Originally posted by rooktakesqueen
it's a well known truth that fact cannot be proved 100%, that is because nothing can be proved to be 100% correct because there is always the possibility it can be disproved later on, a day later, 100 years later, but there is always that possibility it can be proved to not be fact; that is why scientists state "we can say with 99.9 certainty... etc.. ...[text shortened]... utside, faith is seeing it from the inside

fact can be disproved, faith can never be

faith can never be

Can faith ever be incorrect?

Originally posted by rooktakesqueen
it's a well known truth that fact cannot be proved 100%, that is because nothing can be proved to be 100% correct because there is always the possibility it can be disproved later on, a day later, 100 years later, but there is always that possibility it can be proved to not be fact; that is why scientists state "we can say with 99.9 certainty... etc.. ...[text shortened]... utside, faith is seeing it from the inside

fact can be disproved, faith can never be

faith does not rely on evidence. But I don't think you can extrapolate that position to 'evidence will not be forthcoming'......

By that definition 'faith can never be disproved' is a meaningless statement.

To go one step further, we generally accept some facts, otherwise we could not do very much. Presumeably many of these facts will stay 'proven'.....

Originally posted by snowinscotland
faith does not rely on evidence. But I don't think you can extrapolate that position to 'evidence will not be forthcoming'......

By that definition 'faith can never be disproved' is a meaningless statement.

To go one step further, we generally accept some facts, otherwise we could not do very much. Presumeably many of these facts will stay 'proven'.....

faith does not rely on evidence.

Not true. I have faith in my ability to hole a 4 foot putt for money. However , it is based on the evidence (or past experience ) of my own ability. Rationally I can justify the likelihood of me holing the putt based on lots of evidence , but even though I know this, I still need faith to overcome the sea of negative thoughts and doubts that flood over me whilst standing over my putt. Faith is the ability to hold onto an idea or belief that you have accepted to be true whilst your senses and emotions are telling you the contrary.

At other times I don't even think about missing the putt at all , if it was like that all the time I wouldn't need faith in my ability.

Originally posted by rooktakesqueen
it's a well known truth that fact cannot be proved 100%, that is because nothing can be proved to be 100% correct because there is always the possibility it can be disproved later on, a day later, 100 years later, but there is always that possibility it can be proved to not be fact; that is why scientists state "we can say with 99.9 certainty... etc.. ...[text shortened]... utside, faith is seeing it from the inside

fact can be disproved, faith can never be

You are very confused.

Originally posted by rooktakesqueen
it's a well known truth that fact cannot be proved 100%, that is because nothing can be proved to be 100% correct because there is always the possibility it can be disproved later on, a day later, 100 years later, but there is always that possibility it can be proved to not be fact; that is why scientists state "we can say with 99.9 certainty... etc.. ...[text shortened]... utside, faith is seeing it from the inside

fact can be disproved, faith can never be

The faith which you describe is not the faith of salvation. Faith which saves is one of confidence, not of belief.

Originally posted by knightmeister
faith does not rely on evidence.

Not true. I have faith in my ability to hole a 4 foot putt for money. However , it is based on the evidence (or past experience ) of my own ability. Rationally I can justify the likelihood of me holing the putt based on lots of evidence , but even though I know this, I still need faith to overcome the sea of negative ...[text shortened]... issing the putt at all , if it was like that all the time I wouldn't need faith in my ability.

perhaps you misunderstand me... 'does not rely' = no requirement for; if there is evidence for your faith, fine. But it does not rely on it.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You are very confused.

you say i am confused yet you do not give an explanation why

Originally posted by rooktakesqueen
...we know for certain fact is not 100% proof...

I dunno. You only sound about 98% certain.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]faith can never be

Can faith ever be incorrect?[/b]

Faith can be misplaced.

Originally posted by rooktakesqueen
you say i am confused yet you do not give an explanation why

Malnutruition during gestation, most likely.

Originally posted by rooktakesqueen
you say i am confused yet you do not give an explanation why

What would be the use? Your post doesn't resemble anything like a coherent exposition of an epistemic viewpoint. It resembles only a jumbled mess that anybody with sufficient critical thinking skills to appreciate any explanation I might give would have been completely embarrassed to post in the first place.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What would be the use? Your post doesn't resemble anything like a coherent exposition of an epistemic viewpoint. It resembles only a jumbled mess that anybody with sufficient critical thinking skills to appreciate any explanation I might give would have been completely embarassed to post in the first place.

Gee, I thought it was deep.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Gee, I thought it was deep.

he said there was no such thing as fact for one

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
he said there was no such thing as fact for one

Word up.

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

EDIT: This is one of the greatest paragraphs in English prose:

Pyrrho is said to have been so seriously bound to skepticism that it led to his own unfortunate and sudden death around 270 BC According to the legend, he was demonstrating skepticism while blindfolded when his disciples tried to warn him of a dangerous cliff he was headed toward. He refused to believe them, and thus his life ended abruptly. Others are skeptical of this claim.