Log in

View Full Version : Faith vs Knowledge


alieleftundone
December 21st, 2007, 03:50 AM
so i was talking to some of my friends, and they claim what makes a religion true is faith, and that for something like google to be a god, there needs to be a jump, some illogical barrier that u need faith to overcome. google being god is to factual to be a religion they say, whereas christianity and others have that jump that begs faith to be present. what should i tell them?

rzm61
December 21st, 2007, 03:54 AM
Hmm, very good question.
I would say the leap is that Google has all the answers. There might be some things out there that Google just doesnt have, yet.

Thats just my view on it.

alieleftundone
December 21st, 2007, 05:07 AM
ya thats a good point
you have to have faith that it will always have the answer

but they are still adamit that that isnt mystical enough. like there has to be a spiritual jump. and more thoughts?

Steve420
December 21st, 2007, 07:55 AM
In no way does religion HAVE to be "spiritual". At least not to my understanding. I would bring this up in such a discussion.

Wallsy
December 21st, 2007, 08:21 AM
they claim … that for something like google to be a god, there needs to … some illogical barrier that u need faith to overcome. … what should i tell them?

That they're idiots.

The idea that belief without evidence is what makes religious beliefs valid is willfull ignorance and should not be tolerated. If you hjave no evidence to support your beliefs then those beliefs are irrational and worthless. Without evidence there's no grounds for preferring one belief over another — you'd do as well to believe in the invisible pink unicorn, because the amount of evidence is exactly the same.

Basically, "you have to have faith" is an argument put forward by those who know their beliefs are ridiculous but want to justify clinging to them and sometimes even make themselves feel superior by then being able to say things like "I feel sorry for those who can't feel the Holy Spirit within them." and suchlike.

Such people cannot be reasoned with as they have willfully abandoned reason.


Wallsy.

Sister Faith
December 21st, 2007, 04:38 PM
I have Faith! (it's my middle name...no, really!) Seriously though, I have faith in myself and faith that Google can help me attain that faith in myself. Everyone who practices Googlism has faith. :D

rzm61
December 21st, 2007, 05:07 PM
Yeah, I guess thats true. Well all have the faith that Google will provide us with the knowledge and enlightenment we seek.

So far Google has yet to let me down. :)

sudikics
December 21st, 2007, 06:44 PM
Humans need faith, otherwise we go insane. How could we function normally (whatever that may be) while always taking into account that we might suddenly blink out of existence? We take it on faith that that won't happen, but there's always the chance that it will.

rzm61
December 21st, 2007, 06:45 PM
Tomorrow is never gaurenteed, thats why you should live every day like its your last.

We hope that the sun will rise every day but who said it definatly will?

sudikics
December 21st, 2007, 07:10 PM
If I lived like very day was my last, I wouldn't go to work. ;)

Loki
December 21st, 2007, 11:02 PM
If I lived like very day was my last, I wouldn't go to work. ;)

Yeah - I'd have a few questions to answer if I did that :D

rzm61
December 21st, 2007, 11:21 PM
If I lived like very day was my last, I wouldn't go to work. ;)

Good point.

Wallsy
December 22nd, 2007, 06:28 AM
Everyone who practices Googlism has faith. :D

No, we have belief. Faith is belief without evidence or reason. We believe that Google will provide us with answers and that we won't suddenly disappear and that the sun will rise tomorrow because it's happened before and all evidence and reason suggests that it will happen again. That is not the same as faith.


Wallsy.

Sister Faith
December 22nd, 2007, 06:57 AM
According to the Collins Universal Dictionary:
Faith - Belief, esp. in a revealed religion; trust or reliance; a system of religious doctrines believed in.
Believe - to regard as true; to trust; to have faith.
Belief - that which is believed; full acceptance of a thing as true; trust in a statement; faith.
Belief & faith look interchangeable to me.

rzm61
December 22nd, 2007, 07:36 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen looks like The Church of Google has FAITH!

AaronD
December 23rd, 2007, 03:24 AM
Wrong. They are similar, not interchangeable.

Sister Faith
December 23rd, 2007, 05:50 AM
Ok, they are similar. I still say Cog members have faith, just not the blind kind.

alieleftundone
December 23rd, 2007, 06:27 AM
ya those all make sense. ill pour those thoughts on to them... especially walsy's.....

Wallsy
December 23rd, 2007, 12:37 PM
Belief & faith look interchangeable to me.

You have to account for the context of the discussion. In a discussion such as this, the standard definition of faith is "belief without evidence" and belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something". Using these definitions aids clarity and understanding.


Wallsy.

Renco
December 29th, 2007, 01:18 PM
Tomorrow is never gaurenteed, thats why you should live every day like its your last.

We hope that the sun will rise every day but who said it definatly will?

Reminds me of part of a Black Books dialogue.

Bernad: Well it was friday night last week, it'll be Friday night next week and every week untill we're dead, and even then the whole hideous cycle will go on and on.

On another note, http://dictionary.reference.com/

Faith-belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Belief-confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

Believe-to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.

Trust-any large industrial or commercial corporation or combination having a monopolistic or semimonopolistic control over the production of some commodity or service.

OR

Trust2-confident expectation of something; hope.

It seems the only acceptable thing to say when you have facts is "know". eg. I "know" gold has an atomic radius (nm) 0.134, as I have done extensive scientific experimentation.
But if we need faith (or belief or trust) then we have faith that google has all the answers, we just can't find them at times. A rare enough occurence anyway.

rzm61
December 29th, 2007, 01:38 PM
I figured this would either be suitable here or funny images. but anyway I found this.
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/images/Science_verses_faith_flowcharts.jpg

sudikics
December 29th, 2007, 02:05 PM
lol. I've seen something similar to this, hold on...

Here:

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/9234/occamsrazorbu0.jpg

MvT Cracker
December 29th, 2007, 07:10 PM
so i was talking to some of my friends, and they claim what makes a religion true is faith, and that for something like google to be a god, there needs to be a jump, some illogical barrier that u need faith to overcome. google being god is to factual to be a religion they say, whereas christianity and others have that jump that begs faith to be present. what should i tell them?

beleiving in a god at all? when there is proof of evolution but the idea of intelligent design seems possible but there is no proof of the designer

knowledge means you know something to be fact and yet we have faith in knowledge even tho its fact.......

or beleiving in "an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! "

Renco
December 30th, 2007, 03:57 AM
Observe, using mathematics to prove, undeniably, the existence of god.

......A
...../..\
..../....\
.../......\
B _____ C

Triangle ABC looks Isosceles, therefore it is Isosceles. We know this because a similar parallel can be drawn to design. If things look designed, then they are designed. It works for god theories, and math is not above god.

If we accept that the triangle is Isosceles because it looks Isosceles then we can also accept that anything that looks designed is designed, because it works for maths, and maths governs physics and physics governs everything. For something to be designed there needs to be a designer. That designer must be greater than his creation.

Therefore, we have a designer that designed everything, and is greater than all it's creations. The most powerful being ever would need their existence validated by worship of their inferior minions. This is shown by the wing of a butterfly, as it was clearly designed by a lonely, all powerful being, because it looks like it was designed by a lonely, all powerful being.

Therefore we have a god who is more powerful than us, who created us in accordance with the laws of physics and maths and requires our worship to validate his all powerful life. He is also male and delights in punishing his minions for crimes he knew they commit.

Owned.

On my lawyers advice, I say that I don't know what a circle argument is. Furthermore, I will not respond to rebutal, as faith is a precious thing and should not be exposed to the acitve and coruptive influence of satan.

rzm61
December 30th, 2007, 04:19 AM
now only if you threw some formulas in there.

Renco
December 30th, 2007, 10:25 AM
now only if you threw some formulas in there.

Very well.
M over 0 equals infinity, M being any positive number. We can reduce the equation to a simpler form by multiplying both sides by 0. Then we have M = (infinity) x 0. This shows that a positive number is the product of 0 and infinity. This clearly, undeniably demonstrates the creation of the universe by an infinite power out of nothing.

Owned.

Stolen from Aldous Huxley's Point Counter Point.

sudikics
December 30th, 2007, 01:42 PM
Renco, you are so wrong, I hardly know where to begin.


......A
...../..\
..../....\
.../......\
B _____ C

Triangle ABC looks Isosceles, therefore it is Isosceles.

Yes, it looks Isoceles, but it isn't Isosceles because it looks so. It is because, in fact, sides AB and AC are the same length, and therefore it fits the definition of "Isosceles."

You can say whatever the hell you want about a shape, because it doesn't give a damn. It is not Isoceles because of what you see, but because of what is actually there.

We know this because a similar parallel can be drawn to design. If things look designed, then they are designed.
.
There is no basis for this. If a monkey types for an indefinite time on a typewriter, eventually he will turn out a script of Hamlet. It's not designed, it's random.

It works for god theories, and math is not above god.

Um, you just completely contradicted yourself. If math is not above god, then god is above math. So math doesn't have to apply to god. So nothing you've said so far applies.

If we accept that the triangle is Isosceles because it looks Isosceles

which we cannot

then we can also accept that anything that looks designed is designed, because it works for maths, and maths governs physics and physics governs everything.

Again, see above. If physics governs everything, then please explain how god can influence all, because that requires possessing all information, which could only be stored in a space larger than the universe. Contradiction!

For something to be designed there needs to be a designer.

True but irrevalent because of above.

That designer must be greater than his creation.

No, not at all. Are we as humans incapable of building robots that last longer than us, or are stronger or more efficient than ourselves? THe robots can be greater than their creators.

Or take evolution: a creature gives birth to a creature with a genetic mutation that makes it superior to live in that enviroment over its parent.

Therefore, we have a designer that designed everything, and is greater than all it's creations.

No, we don't. Read above.

The most powerful being ever would need their existence validated by worship of their inferior minions.

Uh huh. If he's omnipotent, why can't he just read our prayers out of our heads? Why pray?

http://russellsteapot.com/images/comics/2007/Image090.jpg

This is shown by the wing of a butterfly, as it was clearly designed by a lonely, all powerful being, because it looks like it was designed by a lonely, all powerful being.

That is completely subjective. WHy couldn't it have been designed by evolution? And who the hell said god is lonely? Are you a prophet now? Because oh, boy, you need to review high school logic.

Therefore we have a god who is more powerful than us, who created us in accordance with the laws of physics and maths and requires our worship to validate his all powerful life. He is also male and delights in punishing his minions for crimes he knew they commit.

Hello? Where'd you get the male in there? Again, review high school logic. Practically everything you've said so far is completely wrong.

Owned.

pwned! :icon_lol:


On my lawyers advice, I say that I don't know what a circle argument is. Furthermore, I will not respond to rebutal, as faith is a precious thing and should not be exposed to the acitve and coruptive influence of satan.

Oh my Google, we have reached a stalemate.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/science.PNGhttp://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/faith.PNG

M over 0 equals infinity, M being any positive number.

No, it doesn't. You mean to say that

..lim
x-->0- x^-1 = infinity

We can reduce the equation to a simpler form by multiplying both sides by 0.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. YOU CANNOT MULTIPLY BOTH SIDES BY ZERO, BECAUSE YOU HAVE ZERO AS A DENOMINATOR!

You then get 0/0, which is undefined. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Then we have M = (infinity) x 0.

No, you don't. You have

undefined*M = undefined

This shows that a positive number is the product of 0 and infinity. This clearly,

Wrong, again.

undeniably

O, rly?

Forget the logic, maybe you should retake high school math in general, starting with Algebra I.

demonstrates the creation of the universe by an infinite power out of nothing.

Good job, you took a flawed argument, and streched it and maimed it until you reached the "undeniable" conclusion of the existence of god. Good job.

Owned.

"pwned" doesn't even apply here. You fail.

Stolen from Aldous Huxley's Point Counter Point.

Anyone see this? Highlight over the quote. Why were you hiding this, Renco? It's good to quote your sources.

Loki
December 30th, 2007, 10:31 PM
scikidus mate, I think Renco might have been being a bit sarcastic there ;D

Renco
December 31st, 2007, 12:53 AM
Yeh, lol hwo long did it take you to write all that? I was taking the piss out of religion trying to use science to their own ends.

sudikics
December 31st, 2007, 01:18 AM
I had had a long night, sorry. It took a while.

Oops.

Sorry about the high school math thing.

Renco
December 31st, 2007, 01:56 AM
Yeh, I came up with the first argument, if it looks Isosceles it is which i thought was kind of funny and the second one was a quote I saw in Richard Dawkin's God Delusion. I just copied it word for word, so i wans't offended.
However, if you ignore the fact that it doesn't work mathematically, you could draw the parallel to infinite TIME and nothing creating something, which is more plausible than infinite power.
Think about it. Have a mint.

sudikics
December 31st, 2007, 02:07 AM
I don't see the connection to the outside world. I just see

M = 0 * infinity

and so

M is undefined.

I can't make heads or tails of that.

MvT Cracker
December 31st, 2007, 05:19 AM
Observe, using mathematics to prove, undeniably, the existence of god.

......A
...../..\
..../....\
.../......\
B _____ C

Triangle ABC looks Isosceles, therefore it is Isosceles. We know this because a similar parallel can be drawn to design. If things look designed, then they are designed. It works for god theories, and math is not above god.

If we accept that the triangle is Isosceles because it looks Isosceles then we can also accept that anything that looks designed is designed, because it works for maths, and maths governs physics and physics governs everything. For something to be designed there needs to be a designer. That designer must be greater than his creation.

Therefore, we have a designer that designed everything, and is greater than all it's creations. The most powerful being ever would need their existence validated by worship of their inferior minions. This is shown by the wing of a butterfly, as it was clearly designed by a lonely, all powerful being, because it looks like it was designed by a lonely, all powerful being.

Therefore we have a god who is more powerful than us, who created us in accordance with the laws of physics and maths and requires our worship to validate his all powerful life. He is also male and delights in punishing his minions for crimes he knew they commit.

Owned.

On my lawyers advice, I say that I don't know what a circle argument is. Furthermore, I will not respond to rebutal, as faith is a precious thing and should not be exposed to the acitve and coruptive influence of satan.

google has a designer so whats your point:icon_rolleyes:

Renco
December 31st, 2007, 06:53 AM
google has a designer so whats your point:icon_rolleyes:

It's a joke. It's my interpretation of a Christian showing their trademark blind faith and trying to use science, but on a much more obvious scale. Assuming A so you can conclude B, which leads to A which proves B, making A indisputable. I thought it was funny in a thread about faith and knowledge, trying to bind the two together in a blatantly obivous way, failing miserably as most religious scientists do.

rzm61
December 31st, 2007, 04:54 PM
Hey I enjoyed it.
Thats why I asked for more formulas/variables and numbers.
To make it look more legit.

Wallsy
January 4th, 2008, 08:48 AM
On my lawyers advice, I say that I don't know what a circle argument is. Furthermore, I will not respond to rebutal, as faith is a precious thing and should not be exposed to the acitve and coruptive influence of satan.

Nice. :-)


Wallsy.