Multiverse - Higgs boson - String - Anthropic Principle

[Stoked]

Honestly I think the thing here is that to you (I'm making an assumption, I don't know this and it's very possible I'm wrong. Just trying to understand where you're coming from and I honestly don't really understand) and to the people close to you the existence of God is just a given fact of life. For most of us God exists always because we are taught about his existence before we can even conceptualize what he is and the extraordinary nature of the claim that he is real.

The stuff about leprechauns and unicorns isn't meant as an insult. We're trying to help you see it from our perspective. For myself God is not a given. I'm a second generation atheist so I have basically never believed. I never "lost faith" or got angry with a church and left, or became overwhelmed with doubt. Being an atheist was never a struggle I went through with difficult consequences associated with deciding I was an atheist. So for me, to be aggressively told that God does exist and that my denial of his existence is a sort of faith in itself, well... I'm taken aback. At that point to me I do ask the question if you have faith that unicorns don't exist or if you take the time to take a position on the billions of things that as far as we know don't exist.

And the thing about that is, I acknowledge that of the billions of things we could imagine but that we have no evidence of that specific thing existing, some of it is going to end up actually existing. There's a whole big Universe out there that we know very little about. But saying that it's possible that some of our wildest ideas will end up being true doesn't make me an agnostic in regard to the possibility of each and every thing that could be. I don't harbor some hidden thought that maybe unicorns do exist and that I shouldn't be so brash and arrogant as to just discount the possibility. I just say to myself, "There is no reason to give the possibility of unicorn's existence any special consideration or to declare that I just don't know for sure if unicorns exist or not." And I go on about my day, not particularly worried that my "faith" that unicorns don't exist will be shattered. To me the existence or non existence of unicorns is a non-issue. There's no evidence that they exist. They don't play a role in my life. To spend an undue amount of time trying to figure unicorns out and searching in my heart to feel if they're real seems pretty silly. I would never do that and no one else would ever implore me to do that. Only because God plays such a large role in you life and the life of those close to you do you see some small tragedy in my lack of faith. And that's what it is, a lack of faith.

I don't take it that way. However you are getting deeper into it than what I am saying. To me faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven. Period. Throw out the religious connotations. Look at God as just a thing for a moment. Can it be proven that He exists or does not exist. No, it cannot. Therefore any stance regarding God, he exists or he doesn't, is a measure of faith.

Faith in something does not have to be al consuming and dictate how we live our lives. For example. The belief around here is that PW is a woman. I cannot prove that so believing that she is or isnt is a measure of faith. I dont think about it, It doesnt dictate anything I do but since I cannot prove it and stance I have is a measure of faith.

I am only using God as an example becuase He is the easiest example. I am talking about a literal definition here. A belief, one way or the other, on something that you cannot prove is faith.

 

[scootsy]

wonder if riddick is going back to the underverse

 

[babe]

the nice thing about reading someone like gameface is the way he can present the issue without treating "believers" like an intolerable sociological plague that needs something done to change them. . . ..

the problem with a lot of religious believers and "atheistic" progressives as well, is their presentation that the way people are needs "fixing" somehow. . . . their way. . . ..

but at least these folks "care" for whatever reasons. . . . . and I think people who "care" make a more hopeful case for mankind than those of us who just don't care, well, sometimes anyway.

I guess when I see a church meeting to sing songs about some Leprechaun who presents some claimed hope for mankind on a par with salvation, and a story about how a Leprechaun "so loved" mankind that he gave Himself as a sacrificial propitiation to pay for all our guilt and bring us "Home" hereafter, or of one who for the express reason of blessing mankind created a world for us. . . . well, then I might investigate the claims. . . .

 

[One Brow]

Can it be proven that they are not real?

I know of no method that can prove every possible conception of "leprechaun" is not real. So, to my knowledge, it's not possible to prove leprechauns are purely mythical.

Your turn to answer: is not believing in leprechauns faith?

 

[One Brow]

Therefore any stance regarding God, he exists or he doesn't, is a measure of faith. ... A belief, one way or the other, on something that you cannot prove is faith.

This reads to me as saying faith in God is like saying I have faith oatmeal scotchies are the best cookies. I can't prove it, but I believe it, therefore it's faith.

Now, if that's all faith is for you, great. Many people put higher significance in faith. The Bible refers to something more than that, and I'll bet the Book of Mormon does as well. For many people, it's about willingness to sacrifice, putting genuine effort and commitment into their religion, being willing to accept that there are things inherently not understandable, etc. The way you are using the term comes across, to me, as demeaning those people in a fashion I would never choose to do so; while I would choose to question their rationality but never their sincerity, you make their sincerity small and meaningless by saying it's the same thing as my sincerity. I'm no more sincere about God than I am about leprechauns; I'd never try to compare colton's deep faith with my lack of sincerity about God.

 

[Stoked]

I know of no method that can prove every possible conception of "leprechaun" is not real. So, to my knowledge, it's not possible to prove leprechauns are purely mythical.

Your turn to answer: is not believing in leprechauns faith?

So you want to ask me if a belief in something I cannot prove is fatih...

 

[One Brow]

So you want to ask me if a belief in something I cannot prove is fatih...

I'm trying to see how you define the concept.

 

[Stoked]

This reads to me as saying faith in God is like saying I have faith oatmeal scotchies are the best cookies. I can't prove it, but I believe it, therefore it's faith.

Now, if that's all faith is for you, great. Many people put higher significance in faith. The Bible refers to something more than that, and I'll bet the Book of Mormon does as well. For many people, it's about willingness to sacrifice, putting genuine effort and commitment into their religion, being willing to accept that there are things inherently not understandable, etc. The way you are using the term comes across, to me, as demeaning those people in a fashion I would never choose to do so; while I would choose to question their rationality but never their sincerity, you make their sincerity small and meaningless by saying it's the same thing as my sincerity. I'm no more sincere about God than I am about leprechauns; I'd never try to compare colton's deep faith with my lack of sincerity about God.

Then don't. I never said all faith is created equal but that does not disqualify lesser measures of faith from being faith.

 

[Stoked]

faith/feɪθ/ Show Spelled [feyth] Show IPA
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

Dictionary.com That is how i am defining it.

Which of those covers a lack of belief? Under which definition is your (presumed) non-belief in leprechauns "faith"?

I think there is a miscommunication in how we are using faith here. I am not talking about acts or how we chose to live. I have faith that there is a higher power but I am not active in any religion.

Also there are levels of faith. It can be as simple as being open to the possibility that something is true.

For example, you take on faith my claim of faith. You cannot prove I am faithful. You just choose to accept it but it does not change anything in your life.

Depends on how God is defined. Some are self-contradictory, some are so remote that they haven't been active since the Big Bang, etc.

So, are you acknowledging that a lack of belief in leprechauns is not "faith", as you define it?

Belief in something you cannot prove is faith.

Is not believing in leprechauns faith?

Asked and answered. Repeatedly. Move on.

 

[One Brow]

Asked and answered. Repeatedly. Move on.

Looking at the defintions:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

Non-existence is not a person or thing.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

Lack of belief is not belief.

So, if your position is "asked and answered", the only natural conclusion is that your answer is no. I've been trying to not presume, though, because it seems like you want to say yes. However, since you refuse to directly answer the question, I'll just go with the implication.

 

[Stoked]

Looking at the defintions:



Non-existence is not a person or thing.



Lack of belief is not belief.

So, if your position is "asked and answered", the only natural conclusion is that your answer is no. I've been trying to not presume, though, because it seems like you want to say yes. However, since you refuse to directly answer the question, I'll just go with the implication.

Belief not based on proof. If you cannot prove it its faith.

 

[One Brow]

Belief not based on proof. If you cannot prove it its faith.

Since I have no belief in leprechauns, not faith. Since I have no belief in God, not faith. Agreed.