The difference in facts and faith is facts change. Faith, for the most part, does not. Let me give you an example of faith that you may or may not see. Take a scietiftic fact. In order to believe the science behind that fact, you have to have a measure of faith in that fact to hold up to scrutiny. Now take a religious person. There fact is good, and they believe that their fact, god, will hold up far more than any scienctic fact will in the end.
Oh good grief. First, a "fact" changing is not a bad thing. That's precisely the point of the scientific method. From a previous post of mine: Secondly, are you seriously trying to argue that faith has not changed? What does Zeus say about that, or the gnostic christians, or the protestant reformation, or.....?
Are you saying . .. that YOU [yourself] did not create the Cells in your body? That the cells created by other cells . . . not by you? Rocket River
You don't even know if there's life in other galaxies, Mr. Smarty Pants. You've never even been to the moon. And you can't even say for sure that Buzz Aldrin has, either. Sounds like you might not know as much you would have us believe.
I love putting people on the side of science on the defensive. It is a nice change of pace, it is usually the other way around. My point if, if you view god as a christian fact, having faith in him is much less ridculous when you compare a scientific fact, many of which have changed radically over the years. God is a constant, and though your relationship to the maker might change, god is still god. Therefore, god, as a fact, is as soild a fact as any you will find in science, and moreso.
How many people though can honestly say that they know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God exists? Personally I find it silly when people claim to be 100% (not 99%) positive of the existence (or nonexistence) of God. How is faith in any way a "fact?"
I think the better way of looking at it is what we are 100% convinced about I am 100% convinced that God exists. Also many people believe Jesus existed and He is God. I am 100% convinced Jesus existed. And some people have spiritual experiences with God that remove all doubt. I am 100% sure I know God exists in my heart. Faith and facts are 2 different things It is a fact that I have experienced God in my spirit, but you will need some faith to believe me It is by faith that I believe Jesus died for my sins, but the facts I have are only the veracity of His own words Doubt is not that great a thing, just like being absolutely right all the time is ridiculous both doubt and proof have their place in real faith in God there are times I don't understand anything and I doubt, it requires faith for me to stay the course there are times I am confident and convinced I understand something and I have to prove it by my faith my children doubt some of my decisions but they trust me often in spite of what they don't understand or a mistake I might make doubt is healthy when it leads to discovery but it can leave us jaded and bitter also
What do we know 100% . .. . for a fact? heck . . . DNA only tells you that it is 99.9999 percent sure . . .that you are your parent's child Rocket River
I missed in my post where I said "science." I also missed where I said I "won." I only said I found the argument of "no, on the grounds that it's depressing" amusing. I also missed where I said I was sure in my belief or non-belief in god either way. In fact, I very explicitly said it can't be proven either way. All I said was that, if I HAD to choose ONE, my GUESS would be there is no god. I really have no idea what you're getting all worked up about. You're reading things into my post that I did not say at all. EDIT: Now I'm feeling like the title of this thread is a little more justified. Carry on...
I see the theory, just don't see the point in stating that facts change...like faith doesn't? Simply believing that a persons personal faith might hold up longer is simply more FAITH in the unprovable. That produces nothing to the extent of pointing out that faith is stronger or more realistic. What exactly are you trying to state by saying facts change? is there some flaw in facts changing? I don't believe anyone stated these were ABSOLUTE facts that never changed. Anyone alive that has any kind of common sense can tell you that scientific facts change all the time. Does the meaning of gravity change simply because the fact might change? Or does it simply notify a change in the fact that we as human do not know everything there might be to know about gravity? How exactly does this lessen the fact that gravity is there regardless of the facts around the formula could change? As for having faith in a scientific fact, you would be incorrect as far as stating that i would need "faith" in order to believe the fact. Science is not a religion for me, i have no need to give my life for science. I know for a fact that gravity exists period. I don't even need to know the formulas or the finite details of gravity to believe such. One cannot view GOD as a fact period. Here let me help you with the definition: Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth: So that hypothetical theory about a Christian believing that God is a fact simply is ignorance. The whole point of religion is the FAITH aspect. If a religion could be fact based there would only be one religion in the world. The idea and image of God has changed drastically over the years, hence why people believe in about 1000 different types of god. You cannot be this dense concerning religion vs science. Please in detail show me the 1000 different philosophies about science vs lets say simply the vastly different versions of god of Judaism, Voodoo, Hinduism, Paganism, Catholicism, Islam, and modern day Christianity. God is not the constant for the believer, you have it backwards...the FAITH is the constant, that is what makes the belief and idea of god constant and real. You're trying to pass of faith based beliefs as fact, when you cannot. Simply put since you say God is a fact more so that Science... PROVE IT... And please stop with the deflections, you've yet to put anyone on the defensive, not to mention you really shouldn't assume who is a "science" person or a "religious" person. Because i'm neither... Faith isn't the real issue. Me personally i could care less what anyone believes, worship the trees for all i care, just pass it off as factual to other people when it is not. It matters not to the strong individual who has faith in himself and what he believes to "prove" it to someone else, his faith and ideals are simply good enough for himself.
I could post a longer response to this, but will summarise as such. Science, at least, seeks to find new answers all the time and has the humility to accept new findings. See where i'm going with this ... ? For those who don't feel me - Religions don't seek to question, don't embrace change. Just accept the sketchy details in their thousand year old books. It is stubborn and rigid.
What fascinates me about religion isn't the idea on weather of not "god" exists - the universe is such a ridiculous place that having a god would actually make more sense then not having one. I mean, our science has come to tell us that space and time did not exist 13.7 billion years ago. That there is no explanation for the creation of the universe. That cause and effect don't make sense because since time didn't exist before the big bang, there was no "before". Perhaps the universe is god. Perhaps it is some potent being. Perhaps god is whatever you want to call it or him But what is fascinating about religion is that everyone one seems to create god in some man-like image. So it's not just that religious folks believe god exists - that i can accept, but it's that they are all convinced they know what god looks like and what the rules he set are!
what you are saying is not incorrect. After all what we perceive as fact is just that, perception. Science is only a way of use coming of an understanding of the reality we perceive around us in a communal way. But by your same line of reasoning, anything is possible. God could be a big grapefruit that is just waiting to squash all over us. If someone believes in that, hey, it's just as much fact as any scientific fact. The difference is this. You can believe whatever you want. You don't have to accept science as fact. You can say gravity doesn't exist and it's all god who makes us stick to things. And you can show this by walking off a cliff and beleive that you are walking on thin air. And for all your purpose, it's real and that's a fact. The rest of us can buy into science and watch you fall and go splat.
This statement right here riles me up. Religion for a long time supported science. Religion is the reason we brought back the works of Plato, Aristotle and Socrates. Religion just has an issue accepting the answer, especially when the answer is the opposite of what it thought it would be. RE: Galileo. To be fair, any institution that finds an answer they don't like would do the same. How many drug trials are nudged by drug companies, even though there are side effects? I'm not saying this means religion is good, but to outright say that it hinders science is not all together true. It only hinders the science it doesn't agree with. If you came up with a cure for the common cold, chances are the Pope would want to sit down and hang out with you.
