Faith vs. Evidence, which is better?

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• If you test his hair, you will have evidence too. Or evidence to the contrary. But then again, If you went to a hospital, you might both have to have faith your son wasn't accidentally mixed up with another boy.

  • Report
  

  by Frenchman on a Horse on July 21st, 2011

• You missing the joke.....

  • Report
  

  by robroy12 on July 21st, 2011

Comments

Comments

• Jump off this cliff, you'll land safely and you'll get 3 wishes. Take it on faith. :)

  • Report
  

  by Isaac on August 1st, 2011

Comments

• I'd use something other than the bible to convey your point to people who don't see that book as an authority.
  
  You must also be Suzette R of yahoo answers: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080608151304AATgohJ
  
  I also don't like how you kept using sight as an example. The fact that we cannot see gods isn't the only problem. It's the fact that we can't see, smell, touch, hear, taste, test for or sense in any scientific way. However we CAN test for all those other things you mentioned, so it's clearly a false analogy, and not a very good one at that. Please do not use it again.

  • Report
  

  by Isaac on July 21st, 2011

• No I am not Suzette R of yahoo answers. I am sorry you don't like my choice of words. But in this country we have freedom of speech and if I want to use any particular point I will. Who are you to tell me I can't? And we can test to see if there is a God! The mere fact that we exist and live and breathe prove there is something more powerful than you or I. The whole of creation proves a designer, a maker. Even scientists who at one time denied the existence of a creator, now accept that the universe is so precise that it could not possibly have arrived by chance.

  • Report
  

  by Inquisitive on July 25th, 2011

• "No I am not Suzette R of yahoo answers." Oh, so you just clicked copy and paste then. Well done on putting so much thought into your answer then(!)
  
  "I am sorry you don't like my choice of words. But in this country we have freedom of speech and if I want to use any particular point I will. Who are you to tell me I can't?"
  
  I don't think you could have possibly missed the point of what I was saying any more. There is what you CAN do, and what you CAN'T do, what you SHOULD do, and what you SHOULDN'T do. I'm saying using arguments you know full well aren't valid is in the fourth category, not the second.
  
  "And we can test to see if there is a God! The mere fact that we exist and live and breathe prove there is something more powerful than you or I."
  
  By that logic, the mere "fact" that gods exists and lives proves there is something more powerful than them, and something more powerful than them, and something more powerful than them, ad infinitum. That reasoning doesn't hold logical ground for a second.
  
  "The whole of creation proves a designer, a maker." No it doesn't. For supernatural claims such as gods you need supernatural evidence, but you're equating natural evidence to supernatural claims. Call me old-fashioned, but I think natural claims need natural evidence, and supernatural claims need supernatural evidence.
  
  "Even scientists who at one time denied the existence of a creator, now accept that the universe is so precise that it could not possibly have arrived by chance."
  
  Most scientists are atheists, and as for the "so unlikely it's impossible" fallacy, let me explain it this way:
  
  * You're on a beach and in the wind one grain of sand lands on the end of your finger.
  * It was so unlikely that that specific grain of sand was going to do that specific thing.
  * Therefore it's impossible for sand for get blown in the wind and have things happen to it due to chance, and all contact with sand has to be with intelligence.
  
  Hopefully you'll see the faulty reasoning behind that one.

  • Report
  

  by Isaac on July 25th, 2011

• I have no need to copy and paste. I think out my answers very carefully and research them so that I am confident that what I say is easily understandable to those who read them.
  For those who read with a biased mind - well that is their problem not mine! Obviously you don't have an open mind.
  But I am not here to trade arguments with you or anyone else. I answered a question and if you don't like or agree with the answer, that is your choice.

  • Report
  

  by Inquisitive on July 26th, 2011

• "I have no need to copy and paste. I think out my answers very carefully and research them so that I am confident that what I say is easily understandable to those who read them." And it just so happens to have word-for-word chunks from other people? I don't buy that.
  
  "For those who read with a biased mind - well that is their problem not mine! Obviously you don't have an open mind." Right, I don't argee with you... therefore I must not have an "open mind". Well if that's what you tell yourself for coddling purposes, go right ahead, but I think instead of making excuses it'd be more productive to include logical arguments and factual evidence in favour of your claims.
  
  "But I am not here to trade arguments with you or anyone else. I answered a question and if you don't like or agree with the answer, that is your choice." Fine, I was under the impression that you could defend your viewpoint. In that case, we'll end it here.

  • Report
  

  by Isaac on July 26th, 2011

Comments

• http://tinyurl.com/3rponvc Unless spreader is also Ruby from Yahoo answers, robman2 from prince.org, darkIngram from the minitokyo forums, and admin on the food blog, this is most likely a copy + paste answer. Good to see you put a lot of thought into this one, spreader(!)
  
  I'd use something other than the bible to prove your point to people who don't see that book as an authority. And it certainly appears to me that if one is really hungry for truth, they always get de-converted from their religion.

  • Report
  

  by Isaac on July 5th, 2011

Comments

• No, faith isn't required. If I was so unsure of the evidence gathering process that I needed faith, I wouldn't use that process.

  • Report
  

  by Isaac on July 21st, 2011

• Indeed, evidence does not require faith -- other than the faith that objective reality exists (as opposed to, for example, something like The Matrix). But, since everyone on all sides of this debate seems to have granted that minimal condition, it's not relevant. It's not "faith", for any meaningful discussion of epistemology.
  
  "Science likes to present itself as objective... (but is) a product of humanity" -- this is a distorted claim about science, and implies some sort of weakness which is not true: the fact that humans conduct science in no way diminishes the validity of the result. The computer you are using to post your views is a product of science: do you deny its existence? Do you understand that it would not be possible without the work of science?
  
  Science produces practical knowledge which can be used to produce real outcomes. That is the ultimate test of its validity. Religion does nothing of the sort -- it produces self-appointed "seers", each claiming authority (or authoritative interpretation of ancient texts, which is really the same thing). They all argue with each other about things nobody can detect or measure. It's pointless.

  • Report
  

  by HasntBeen on July 21st, 2011

Comments

• Neither? Of course they're different things. Anything. Anything.

  • Report
  

  by Isaac on July 21st, 2011

• And that said, neither is better and neither is worse. It all depends on what I have faith in and of what evidence I posses.
  
  How is that for an evasive response? :-)

  • Report
  

  by ClintonvilleTom has closed up shop. on July 21st, 2011

Comments

• What is faith to you, KDP?

  • Report
  

  by Isaac on July 21st, 2011

• Strong belief in something backed up by evidence that has yet to actually be proven. Otherwise, it's just a high degree of hope and that's just silly. I could have faith, for instance, that the Seattle Mariners will win the World Series next year but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

  • Report
  

  by KDP on July 21st, 2011