Obsolescence of Sources of Fact

[B. John Jones]

The basis of learning everything mathematical and scientific being the number one, always learned by trusting someone (faith), the next being the number two, learned again by faith, at what point should a person discard faith?

 

The best answer, that I think I can fairly project, is that a source should be discarded, as far as being trustworthy, when it fails "to work." I would ask then, are there ever any instances (and I think this can be fairly tested either by informal, or by formal observations) of Biblical faith, specifically, being both practical, and enriching in ways similar to or exceeding music, for example, for a person or for a group of persons?

 

If there is ever an instance (and moreover, many instances) of Biblical faith, specifically, "working" for people, why should Biblical faith be dismissed as evidence (vs. proof), in science; as for example when a former adherent to so-called "speciation," becomes an opponent due to their considering all evidence, including evidence based on Biblical faith? In every case, no unbeliever can substantiate or negate his or her claims, ever. So, why not count his claims as evidence? Please note the distinction between "proof" and "evidence." I am not saying that a believer's notions about facts are solid (proven) just because faith works for him or her. I am saying his notions should be counted as evidence (not usually as proof, not conclusive).

Edited June 22, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Daecon]

What about Quranic faith, Tolmudic faith, Vedic faith, and so on?

[B. John Jones]

Is Mohamed yet living or dead? Aren't Vyasa an Krishna still dead? And what of Jesus of Nazareth? His adherents all agree, he is alive and well.

[Daecon]

Why does that have any relevance?

[B. John Jones]

Why does that have any relevance?

 

I believe I've allowed you to take this off topic. Anyway, it's not relevant. In fact, it's the crux of the universe.

[Daecon]

Why are you wanting to have the text of one specific religion be allowable as "evidence" but not the texts of every other religion? That's bias at best, hypocrisy at worst.

[B. John Jones]

Why are you wanting to have the text of one specific religion be allowable as "evidence" but not the texts of every other religion? That's bias at best, hypocrisy at worst.

 

Absolutely not. Admit every text! As evidence. When and where did "science" confuse evidence as proof. I'm not saying believe the Bible, in science. I'm saying test the Bible. Consider it--as evidence.

[John Cuthber]

 

Absolutely not. Admit every text! As evidence. When and where did "science" confuse evidence as proof. I'm not saying believe the Bible, in science. I'm saying test the Bible. Consider it--as evidence.

As I have pointed out in another of your threads.

Society and science did start off with the notion that the scriptures were true.

And then we found that they were wrong.

 

Why do you think we should deliberately reintroduce something which we know to give the wrong answer?

[B. John Jones]

As I have pointed out in another of your threads.

Society and science did start off with the notion that the scriptures were true.

And then we found that they were wrong.

 

Who is "we?" All "concerned," excluding Jews and Christians?

Rome is shrewd and defiant. They feigned to destroy the church. Failing that, they counterfeited it. I am certain that nearly 99% of all scientists who were "Christian," and conceded that the Bible is false were of the Roman religion, and not of Christian faith.

[Daecon]

Rome? What in the world are you going on about?

[Klaynos]

I am certain that nearly 99% of all scientists who were "Christian," and conceded that the Bible is false were of the Roman religion, and not of Christian faith.

!

Moderator Note

we don't make uncited assertions like that here. Cite your source or withdraw the claim.

[Strange]

Your post is so confused, it is hard to know how to reply...

 

The basis of learning everything mathematical and scientific being the number one, always learned by trusting someone (faith), the next being the number two, learned again by faith, at what point should a person discard faith?

 

I don't see any reason why anyone should discard their faith on the basis of science. However, when the faith contradicts reality, then they have a choice to make.

 

I have heard some people say that if reality contradicts their holy book, then it is reality that is wrong. Personally, I think that insane. But it is their choice.

 

 

 

The best answer, that I think I can fairly project, is that a source should be discarded, as far as being trustworthy, when it fails "to work." I would ask then, are there ever any instances (and I think this can be fairly tested either by informal, or by formal observations) of Biblical faith, specifically, being both practical, and enriching in ways similar to or exceeding music, for example, for a person or for a group of persons?

 

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of people's faith being enriching and "working" for them. So what? That is evidence of nothing other than the fact that faith can be helpful to some people. But I think we know that already.

 

 

 

Please note the distinction between "proof" and "evidence."

 

In science, there isn't really any such thing as proof.

 

I am not saying that a believer's notions about facts are solid (proven) just because faith works for him or her. I am saying his notions should be counted as evidence (not usually as proof, not conclusive).

 

 

But if they believe, with all their heart, that the Earth is flat (and that enriches their lives) it doesn't change the fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.

[swansont]

The basis of learning everything mathematical and scientific being the number one, always learned by trusting someone (faith), the next being the number two, learned again by faith, at what point should a person discard faith?

 

The best answer, that I think I can fairly project, is that a source should be discarded, as far as being trustworthy, when it fails "to work." I would ask then, are there ever any instances (and I think this can be fairly tested either by informal, or by formal observations) of Biblical faith, specifically, being both practical, and enriching in ways similar to or exceeding music, for example, for a person or for a group of persons?

 

If there is ever an instance (and moreover, many instances) of Biblical faith, specifically, "working" for people, why should Biblical faith be dismissed as evidence (vs. proof), in science; as for example when a former adherent to so-called "speciation," becomes an opponent due to their considering all evidence, including evidence based on Biblical faith? In every case, no unbeliever can substantiate or negate his or her claims, ever. So, why not count his claims as evidence? Please note the distinction between "proof" and "evidence." I am not saying that a believer's notions about facts are solid (proven) just because faith works for him or her. I am saying his notions should be counted as evidence (not usually as proof, not conclusive).

By your own criterion in paragraph 2 (emphasis added) the question is not whether Biblical faith is ever seen to work, it's whether it ever fails. And it fails often and quite spectacularly (e.g. how many children have died because their parents relied on faith and prayer instead of antibiotics?). So by your own description, Biblical faith has to be discarded as a reliable source.

 

Once you have established that the method is not reliable, then you don't know whether a result you get is correct. You can't use any of the results.

[B. John Jones]

Your post is so confused, it is hard to know how to reply...

 

I don't see any reason why anyone should discard their faith on the basis of science. However, when the faith contradicts reality, then they have a choice to make.

 

I have heard some people say that if reality contradicts their holy book, then it is reality that is wrong. Personally, I think that insane. But it is their choice.

 

And you're correct, assuming that you're understanding them correctly. As far as correct Biblical faith, it never contradicts reality. Show me one instance, if you have courage and the discipline.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of people's faith being enriching and "working" for them. So what? That is evidence of nothing other than the fact that faith can be helpful to some people. But I think we know that already.

 

This was included preemptively, because I'm sure someone would have answered that people in science should never be moved by faith or trust, unless they have observed that trusting the source is "profitable." I say this because I keep hearing in these forums that "scientific people," rely exclusively on a scientific approach because--"it works."

 

In science, there isn't really any such thing as proof.

 

Maybe not technically, but certainly conceptually. There has to be for something to be designated "scientific fact." A preponderance of evidence in law, science or any discipline I would think effectually corroborates something as fact, by proving it (proof).

 

But if they believe, with all their heart, that the Earth is flat (and that enriches their lives) it doesn't change the fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.

 

Very locally (a radius of 300 yards around an observer, for instance [usually]) , the earth is relatively flat. And by your definition of the earth, it is relatively flat. It is basically spherical only from a very distant, or photographic view. Even the Bible, as dated as Isaiah, describes the earth as circular ("circle o the earth").

[Strange]

 

And you're correct, assuming that you're understanding them correctly. As far as correct Biblical faith, it never contradicts reality. Show me one instance, if you have courage and the discipline.

 

I think it would be considered off-topic for this thread. But if you take Genesis to be literally true, for example, then that is contradicted by the fossil record, by genetics, by cosmology and several other lines of evidence.

 

 

Maybe not technically, but certainly conceptually. There has to be for something to be designated "scientific fact." A preponderance of evidence in law, science or any discipline I would think effectually corroborates something as fact, by proving it (proof).

 

Not really, no. Unless you are going to be very sloppy with words (to the extent of changing their meaning).

 

 

Very locally (a radius of 300 yards around an observer, for instance [usually]) , the earth is relatively flat. And by your definition of the earth, it is relatively flat. It is basically spherical only from a very distant, or photographic view. Even the Bible, as dated as Isaiah, describes the earth as circular ("circle o the earth").

 

How is that relevant? There are people who believe the world is flat, not just locally but completely. They are clearly wrong. Their beliefs don't match reality.

[B. John Jones]

By your own criterion in paragraph 2 (emphasis added) the question is not whether Biblical faith is ever seen to work, it's whether it ever fails. And it fails often and quite spectacularly (e.g. how many children have died because their parents relied on faith and prayer instead of antibiotics?). So by your own description, Biblical faith has to be discarded as a reliable source.

 

With all due respect, and all honor, not quite. The Bible says to use wisdom, not folly. It also says that faith without works is dead. Depending on the Bible, and discarding common sense, especially as a parent, is not Biblical faith. It is sheer folly, insanity or Satanic.

 

Once you have established that the method is not reliable, then you don't know whether a result you get is correct. You can't use any of the results.

 

A few edits and your statement would be much closer to perfect: "When a method is correctly, and certainly, established as unreliable, then you know that the method will not consistently produce a good result. In this case you can't depend on any of the results." Jesus said the same thing: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A17-19&version=NLT

[Strange]

 

With all due respect, and all honor, not quite. The Bible says to use wisdom, not folly. It also says that faith without works is dead. Depending on the Bible, and discarding common sense, especially as a parent, is not Biblical faith. It is sheer folly, insanity or Satanic.

 

 

But those people believed they were doing the right and wise thing based on their faith. How do you tell the difference between "good faith" and "wrong faith"? (Science, is one way, of course.)

 

 

A few edits and your statement would be much closer to perfect: "When a method is correctly, and certainly, established as unreliable, then you know that the method will not consistently produce a good result. In this case you can't depend on any of the results." Jesus said the same thing: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A17-19&version=NLT

 

What does adding "correctly and certainly" change? Nothing. If you know the method is unreliable then you know its results can't be trusted.

 

And that isn't what that verse from the Bible says. Although it is a good lesson in using selection and evolution to create better fruit trees.

[swansont]

 

With all due respect, and all honor, not quite. The Bible says to use wisdom, not folly. It also says that faith without works is dead. Depending on the Bible, and discarding common sense, especially as a parent, is not Biblical faith. It is sheer folly, insanity or Satanic.

 

 

The Bible says lots of things, which is part of the problem. It can also be cryptic and says things that can be interpreted multiple ways. People have used the Bible to infer that the earth was the center of the universe. They did not correct this belief until they objectively observed the behavior of the planets and realized that they were wrong. That's one of many, many example where belief has steered us wrong.

 

I would argue that Biblical faith applied to science is folly, not wisdom. So the Bible itself is warning you away from this.

[Strange]

 

Absolutely not. Admit every text! As evidence. When and where did "science" confuse evidence as proof.

 

Science doesn't confuse evidence and proof. You do.

 

 

I'm not saying believe the Bible, in science. I'm saying test the Bible. Consider it--as evidence.

 

And people have done this. Some things in the bible appear to be true and some seem to be contradicted by facts.

And what of Jesus of Nazareth? His adherents all agree, he is alive and well.

 

What his adherents believe is irrelevant. If you want to claim this, you need evidence.

[swansont]

 

A few edits and your statement would be much closer to perfect: "When a method is correctly, and certainly, established as unreliable, then you know that the method will not consistently produce a good result. In this case you can't depend on any of the results." Jesus said the same thing: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A17-19&version=NLT

 

 

So Jesus is telling you to chop down your faith that the Bible is a reliable source of science and throw it into the fire. Why aren't you doing that?

I'm not saying believe the Bible, in science. I'm saying test the Bible. Consider it--as evidence.

 

Then why are you talking about faith?

[John Cuthber]

Who is "we?" All "concerned," excluding Jews and Christians?

Rome is shrewd and defiant. They feigned to destroy the church. Failing that, they counterfeited it. I am certain that nearly 99% of all scientists who were "Christian," and conceded that the Bible is false were of the Roman religion, and not of Christian faith.

Ignoring the absurdity of pretending that the biggest Christian group in teh world isn't Christian...

 

When I said "As I have pointed out in another of your threads.

Society and science did start off with the notion that the scriptures were true.

And then we found that they were wrong."

I thought I made it quite clear who the "we" involved is.

It's "Society and science".

OK, lets make it slightly clearer Society started off by trying to include the scriptures- but they would not fit because they did not tally with the way in which the world works.

The old books did not agree with all the other (consistent) evidence.

Something had to "give".

Science decided that evidence should stay and scripture should go.

It has produced many marvellous things since doing so.

Religion decided that the scriptures should stay, and the evidence should go.

It has mainly produced arguments and wars.

[B. John Jones]

Ignoring the absurdity of pretending that the biggest Christian group in teh world isn't Christian...

 

When I said "As I have pointed out in another of your threads.

Society and science did start off with the notion that the scriptures were true.

And then we found that they were wrong."

I thought I made it quite clear who the "we" involved is.

It's "Society and science".

OK, lets make it slightly clearer Society started off by trying to include the scriptures- but they would not fit because they did not tally with the way in which the world works.

The old books did not agree with all the other (consistent) evidence.

Something had to "give".

Science decided that evidence should stay and scripture should go.

It has produced many marvellous things since doing so.

Religion decided that the scriptures should stay, and the evidence should go.

It has mainly produced arguments and wars.

 

What if science takes place in one moment of time, let's say, 3,000 years. What if 3,000 years is precisely a moment in time. What if, during that window of time, our view of nature is quite like viewing the vivid moon behind swiftly passing ghosts of cloud? What if all the consistent evidence, very real, is but a test? 3,000 years might go by in bliss, with many marvelous things, and yet the multitudes, would ultimately meet with destruction.

Religion decided that the scriptures should stay, and the evidence should go.

It has mainly produced arguments and wars.

 

The Scripture itself declares, "My words will never pass away." But you are right, religion, quite demonic, decide as they please, and have blood on their hands. But faith stands firm on God's Word.

[Moontanman]

Is Mohamed yet living or dead? Aren't Vyasa an Krishna still dead? And what of Jesus of Nazareth? His adherents all agree, he is alive and well.

 

 

Actually all of them are just as alive as jesus...

The basis of learning everything mathematical and scientific being the number one, always learned by trusting someone (faith), the next being the number two, learned again by faith, at what point should a person discard faith?

 

The best answer, that I think I can fairly project, is that a source should be discarded, as far as being trustworthy, when it fails "to work." I would ask then, are there ever any instances (and I think this can be fairly tested either by informal, or by formal observations) of Biblical faith, specifically, being both practical, and enriching in ways similar to or exceeding music, for example, for a person or for a group of persons?

 

If there is ever an instance (and moreover, many instances) of Biblical faith, specifically, "working" for people, why should Biblical faith be dismissed as evidence (vs. proof), in science; as for example when a former adherent to so-called "speciation," becomes an opponent due to their considering all evidence, including evidence based on Biblical faith? In every case, no unbeliever can substantiate or negate his or her claims, ever. So, why not count his claims as evidence? Please note the distinction between "proof" and "evidence." I am not saying that a believer's notions about facts are solid (proven) just because faith works for him or her. I am saying his notions should be counted as evidence (not usually as proof, not conclusive).

 

 

Faith is not a path to anything but gullibility... You take on this is wildly deceptive and blatantly dishonest, please give an example of biblical faith being evidence of anything but wishful thinking...

[John Cuthber]

 

What if science takes place in one moment of time, let's say, 3,000 years. What if 3,000 years is precisely a moment in time. What if, during that window of time, our view of nature is quite like viewing the vivid moon behind swiftly passing ghosts of cloud? What if all the consistent evidence, very real, is but a test? 3,000 years might go by in bliss, with many marvelous things, and yet the multitudes, would ultimately meet with destruction.

 

The Scripture itself declares, "My words will never pass away." But you are right, religion, quite demonic, decide as they please, and have blood on their hands. But faith stands firm on God's Word.

"What if 3,000 years is precisely a moment in time. "

then you are making stuff up.

Do you realise that making stuff up is fine while in the playground at school, but not helpful on a science web site?

 

This

"The Scripture itself declares, "My words will never pass away." " is more or less begging the question.

Please don't do it again.

[Moontanman]

 

What if science takes place in one moment of time, let's say, 3,000 years. What if 3,000 years is precisely a moment in time. What if, during that window of time, our view of nature is quite like viewing the vivid moon behind swiftly passing ghosts of cloud? What if all the consistent evidence, very real, is but a test? 3,000 years might go by in bliss, with many marvelous things, and yet the multitudes, would ultimately meet with destruction.

 

The Scripture itself declares, "My words will never pass away." But you are right, religion, quite demonic, decide as they please, and have blood on their hands. But faith stands firm on God's Word.

 

 

How do you explain away gods word demanding murder genocide, rape pillage and taking of little girls as sex slaves?